Please stop disrupting the Djakovica/Gjakova article. You are approving made up facts just to introduce a trace of Serb ownership to the town. It is clear from your decisions and your political statements on the page that you are not fit to make judgments on the information entered on this article. If you do not stop, I might have to report you for introducing personal biases to articles. Thanks Arianit18:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
e znam da te ne znam. al vidim da si ostavljao neke komentare ranije o kosovu. ajde molim te pomagaj, ja umirem svako vece objasnjavajuci siptarima istoriju.
Gianni_ita
Gianni ita15:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Да ли си ти администратор на енглеској Википедији? Питам јер би добро било имати једног представника српске Википедије као администратора на енглеској Википедији. Ако ниси, хајде да се договоримо око кандидатуре, да смислимо стратегију, добијемо подршку неколико екипа и да те изгласамо за администратора. Имаш доста измена и могао би да прођеш. Поздрав,
I am very busy. When you have time, see through the history of the History of Kosovo article. There has been a massive removal and altering of the info to the incorrect version...
Do we know each other??? I don't know you.. Your name for some reason sounds familiar, as if you were on sezamnet or sezampro, but I am not sure. Either way, I don't know you and vice versa, but I did hear of your strong oppositions against my addition to Wiki list.. How come? What ever it is that you have against me, or whatever you have (I don't really know what is going on in your head or if you have some issues), but I'd rather hear it from you, since it is coming from you, than from other people.. Oherwise, it's ridicilous to say stuff you said apropos my addition to the list, when you and I have never even spoken to each other?!
Pre svega ja sam se trudio da sredim članke o svim okruzima Srbije (posao još nisam završio) uključujući i ove kosovske i zaista nije lepo da revertuješ SVE moje izmene na tim člancima (a stvarno mrzim kad neko tako uništava moj rad). Ako se ne slažeš sa nekim delom tih članaka, onda promeni te delove, ali nemoj da revertuješ sve. Drugo, mislim da okruzi Srbije na Kosovu više ne postoje ni u zakonskom ni u faktičkom smislu. Pošto je Srbija prihvatila upravu UN na Kosovu, prihvatila je i civilnu UN administraciju, prema tome jedino okruzi koje je uspostavila UN administracija se mogu smatrati zakonskim. Nije mi jasno po kom zakonu ovi okruzi još postoje, ako je Srbija prihvatila civilnu upravu UN na Kosovu?. Prema tome, ako u nekom zakonu i piše da ovi okruzi postoje, to se onda kosi sa drugim zakonom kojim je Srbija prihvatila civilnu upravu UN. Sledeće, ako administracija ovih okruga i dalje funkcioniše izvan Kosova, to ne znači da oni postoje. Mislim da članke ne treba menjati u tom smislu, ali da treba u njih dodati da prema jednom gledištu ti okruzi još uvek zakonski postoje (Naravno ovde se radi o dva suprotna gledišta države Srbije, jer prema drugom gledištu države Srbije prema kom je Srbija prihvatila administraciju UN, ti okruzi ne bi trebali da postoje). I nema tu nikakve albanske propagande, već je to ono što je Milošević potpisao 1999. PANONIAN(talk)13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
>I was never on sezamnet or sezampro, but I was on SETNet, and wrote >for Svet kompjutera, maybe yousaw my name there. Anyway, I saw >something you wrote on sr wiki but it turned out that you have just >translated it, that's all.
Regardless of whether I wrote it or translated, because your opinion is different than mine, you are going to stipulate, demand and condition of others my addition to the list? The last time I checked sr. Wikpedia wasn't called Nikola Smolenki's Wikipedia... Don't think I am talking out of nowhere, but rather I know about emails you sent... And if you have some political or personal agendas to push, I suggest that you don't do them on wikipedia..
Видео сам,да си поставио хронологију Београда овде(на енглеску) која је са званичног сајта града,па ме занима да ли имамо дозволу за коришћење њихових материјала или не?
Ако имамо ћорнућу им историју,пошто је наша(на српској) никаква.
Zašto bih se čudno ponašao u vezi pitanja Kosova? Ja samo poštujem neke principe i to je sve. Razlog zbog kojeg sam se raspravljao sa Bošnjacima oko Republike Srpske i razlog zbog kojeg editujem članke o Kosovu tako kako editujem je apsolutno isti - smatram da ti članci ne treba da budu uvredljivi za većinu stanovnika ovih teritorija. Ali pošto moji lični stavovi nisu bitni, da pređemo na konkretna pitanja: okruzi su pre svega političko-teritorijalne administrativne jedinice i ako kao takve ne postoje na terenu, onda ne postoje. Na primer, hoćeš li reći da je Tibet nezavisna država samo zato što postoji vlada Tibeta u izgnanstvu? Isti je slučaj i ovde. Što se tiče uprave UN na Kosovu, ona ima ovlašćenja da menja sve. Uprava UN pokriva celokupnu civilnu administraciju na teritoriji Kosova (a okruzi su svakako deo te civilne administracije). Prema tome, ako država Srbija i dalje de jure upravlja ovim okruzima, ona to čini ilegalno, suprotno sporazumu sa UN koji je prihvatila. Ti okruzi postoje na papiru samo zato što su nekom u Srbiji potrebni politički poeni za nove izbore. Znači, nije UNMIK iskoračio iz svojih ovlašćenja, već vlada Srbije, kojoj bi uzgred bilo bolje da se bavi ekonomskim pitanjima i otvaranjem novih radnih mesta nego da troši novce na mlaćenje prazne slame. I kao što sam rekao, ako ovi okruzi ne postoje na terenu, onda ne postoje. Oni postoje samo u fiktivnom smislu, u istom onom smislu u kojem je postojala i Rugovina Republika Kosovo između 1990 i 1999. I sigurno nisam jedina osoba koja smatra da ti okruzi ne postoje. Uostalom, namera mi je bila da tim člancima o bivšim okruzima Kosova poboljšam kvalitet i da ih sačuvam od daljeg vandalizovanja. Ti si naravno revertovao sve moje izmene zato što se ne slažeš sa jednim delom članka, a to baš nije lepo. Ako nemaš vremena da promeniš ono što smatraš netačnim a da sačuvaš moje ostale izmene, onda nemoj ni revertovati dok ne nađeš vremena. Ja uostalom nisam revertovao članke zbog spora oko pitanja da li ti okruzi postoje ili ne, već zbog spora oko generalnog izgleda članaka. Pošto se ne slažem sa tobom oko sadašnjeg statusa ovih okruga ja to neću menjati u člancima, ali neću ni revertovati ako to ti promeniš. Međutim, revertovaću ako ne prihvatiš sadašnji generalni izgled članaka (bez obzira na njihov sadržaj). Toliko. :) PANONIAN(talk)21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I said it is 'greatly to be believed the shots came from the Serbian side' because reports have shown that. I did not include the fact that serbian authorities blocked every effort for autopsies to be performed in order to resolve the issues as to who fired the shots (why did they blocked such a thing?). Even though EVERYONE knew who they were by their names, since the media picked up the story, in the morgue, no one even wanted to labele their bodies as such, but just wrote them under numbers (250 and 251), downplaying who they were when burial came about (religious customs were different for both, since she was muslim and he christian).
Difference between you and me (obviously, beside opinions) is that i have NEVER conditioned your addition to the list, as I don't have that right, and you don't either. There are tons of people who have different views on world than me, but I have NEVER, stipulated and conditioned their addition to any such list. Who the hell are you to do such a thing and think that you have that right??? Do you own Wikipedia?
I have noticed a user box on your user page that condemned personal attacks. Without malice, I ask you to please notice that you said, "if you would have anything but hatred in your head, before accusing me..." To me, this sounds critical and inflammatory.
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Opensource.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ustase1.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.
Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damicktalkcontribs12:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Na Simple English Wikipediji nema članka University of Priština.Trebalo bi to iskoristiti da makar tamo napišemo clanak koji,verovatno,neće stalno da menjaju. Ja sam na English i Simple English napisao neke osnovne podatke o Fakultetu umetnosti u Prištini (na kome studiram,a trebalo bi uskoro i da počnem da radim kao saradnik u nastavi),a u članku o Kosovskoj Mitrovici pomenuo otkud naš univerzitet tamo. Andrija
Nikola, borim se ja protiv anti-srpskog raspolozenja na svoj nacin, uglavnom pratim "zarista" konflikata na Wikipediji i pomazem ostalima kao sto su Boris, Svetislav,... Pre mislim da bi Boris vise bio za neki "organizovan otpor protiv anti-srpskog raspolozenja", ali za to mu sluzi WikiProjekat Srbija. Prati nase izmene i pomozi tamo gde treba, sloga nam je najjace oruzje. --KOCOBO18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sto se tice organizacije... Ne valja da svako vidi sta planiramo i koji su nam ciljevi. Bolje je da je to relativno "skriveno" u prilozima, a ne sve lepo napisano da moze bilo koji siptar da nas prijavi nekom anti-srpskom administratoru (a takvih ima mnogo), pa da nas sve blokiraju zbog sirenja "Srpske genocidno-milosevicevske propagande" (znas vec kako prica ide). Probaj nekako tvoj projekat da ubacis u WikiProjekat Srbija, tj. mozda nekako da se ujedine, a izgleda mnogo bezazlenije administratorima. --KOCOBO19:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikola Smolenski. I am Wikiwoohoo and I am a member of the AMA. I am sorry to hear that you are having problems but would like to help resolve those quickly. What I would ask is that you provide me with the full description of the problem, but also name the users involved as well so that I can then contact them asking for their side. This can be through Wikipedia if you wish, either on this talkpage or my own, or by email if you would prefer, since that is private whereas pages on Wikipedia can be accessed by all. I await your response and hope to help you reach a satisfactory outcome with your problem. Wikiwoohoo19:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see. If you could elaborate on the explanation of the differences between Montenegro and the Montenegrin nation it would be useful, so that I can have some further background of the matter. Thank you for your help. Wikiwoohoo20:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Your response is very detailed and I thank you for taking the time to explain the background. The problem I see and I would welcome your correction is whether it can be completely proven as to how Milla Jovovich considers her ethnic background and nationality. Is there perhaps an official website that lists this? I will then contact the user you have mentioned to hear their side. Wikiwoohoo15:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your further clarification. Unfortunately, due to an increase of pressure outside Wikipedia at my work, I will have to begin to scale back my activities here. However, I would still very much like to help you with your current problem. The reason I am mentioning this is because I will not be able to donate as much time here as I would like and so therefore if you would prefer, I could put you in touch with another advocate who could take over from here. This is however entirely up to you and I will respect your decision. Wikiwoohoo14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have a few suggestions: the first is to use English on your talk page. This is just so other people can see what's going on and everything's more open. Also, the MfD does seem to have sketchy consensus. Personally, I'd take it to WP:DRV just to see what happens there. Frankly, if it fails on DRV I don't think there's much more that can be done. Computerjoe's talk13:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, daj da spojimo projekte. Iako sam malo povređen što me nisi pozvao da se pridružim tvom projektu, voljan sam zajedno da radimo na tome, a zajedno smo jači. --Serbtalk21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Projekt je izbrisan, nadam se da si ga prekopirao negde pre nego sto se ovo desilo. Prebaci sadrzaj na stranicu za razgovor mog Wikiprojecta, pa cu ga organizovati u sablone. --Serbtalk17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know why some Serb(s) out there has found the need to make Serb Pov edits to all things to with Croatians and Croatia.
Someone has deleted Croatian Famous people etc...
I don't see Croats doing that to Serb related articles?
Why does soemone keep doing that and by doing that add fuel to the fire?
As i see it, Serbs can be found editing most things Croat or Croatian, something like 85% of articles have had Serb Pov added in some shape or form.
Croats have little interest in Serb related articles.
Why is there such a difference in interest?
I haven't heard from you in a few days, so if you I don't here from you with 72 hours I shall close your AMA case (though I'm willing to act as your advocate in the future).
I noticed that you restored the section "dispersed ancestral clans" in article about "Serb clans" which I had previously removed because of unclearness of this group. Since it is not at all clear what kind of classification principles are used to include them in the list and what character these groups (plemena, bratstva, porodice?) have, could you provide a brief definition of this group? Especially what you mean by 'dispersed' and 'ancestral' (ancestral to whom?). Otherwise I think it would be fair to remove this section. Especially because originally the article was about Montenegro and connection of these groups to Montenegro is unclear.--Bezvardis07:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Nikola, what happened to the POV tag on the Srebrenica massacre article? Any plans to get more engaged in it? Know of anyone else who would be interested? Cheers Osli7321:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Da, dobra je mapa boja na Kosovu. Znam da sam već negde video takvu mapu (u nekoj knjizi), samo ne mogu sad da se setim gde. Izgleda da su u zadnje vreme svi počeli da crtaju mape. :) PANONIAN(talk)20:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I fixed the ISBN-tool. The "Schienenwolf"-bug is due to the broken replication of the en database on the toolserver. I can't work around that; I'm waiting for query.php to support "images used in this page". As for the geohack thing - it has never come up. Maybe I'll ask wikitech-l if I should integrate it. Thanks for the feedback! --Magnus Manske
Hi Nikola. I realy don't care about "coalition" or whatsoever but please be cautious, with your last revert you have also deleted my notes (Battle of Kosovo) about the strength of the armies... Lysandros03:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, kapiram što je svg bolji, ali mape sam prvobitno pravio u ipg, pa je neki lik na sve mape stavio tag da ih treba prebaciti u png ili svg. I sad mi kažeš da sam napravio loš izbor formata? :) Ok, možda počnem da koristim svg ubuduće. :) PANONIAN(talk)21:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image Tagging for Image:Belgrade Coat of Arms small.svg
Thanks for uploading Image:Belgrade Coat of Arms small.svg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
Thanks for uploading Image:Belgrade Coat of Arms medium.svg. However, the copyright tag you've used is deprecated or obsolete, and should not be used. This could be because the tag is inaccurate or misleading, or because it does not adequately specify the copyright status of the image. For a list of copyright tags that are in current use, see the "Public domain", "Free license", and "Fair use" sections of Wikipedia:Image copyright tags.
Ајде нек остане, али ово је такав провинцијализам. Без тога грб изгледа одлично, складо, а са тим изгледа crap. Totally crap. Шта мисле ти глупани у градској скупштини? Да нико неће знати како се зове град ако не напишу? They've shot themselves in the foot once again. // estavisti15:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikola, though we may not agree on all issues you also appear to think that the Srebrenica massacre areticle deserves to be improved (per your comment on my talk page). What would your focus be?KarlXII09:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You were right to remove the POV tag. Looking at the history, I must have put it there just to placate the guy who was offended, so that he wouldn't remove that paragraph again. --Hadžija00:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you are ignoring sources... I will be back in day or two with dozens of sources which says there was no local Muslims, but Bosnian government. You people need to start reading! Mythology is obsolete. --HarisM23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you ignoring that all the media, forgein politicians and other named that evil local muslims - Bosnian government. Maybe because that government wasn't made only of Muslims? Shake that paranoia! You are pathetic. --HarisM12:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zdravo! Molim te pogledaj moj odgovor u diskusiji o brisanju ove stranice, i ako ga smatras dovoljno argumentovanim, izmeni svoj glas. Napomenuo bih da mi nije cilj da po svaku cenu izbrisem sadrzaj koji sadrzi korisne informacije o srpskim autoputevima, vec da uklonimo reference koje ce izazvati da ljudi koriste pogresne informacije sa ove enciklopedije, koja se sve vise smatra referentnom - bas kao sto je to bio slucaj sa izvorom koji si ti naveo u diskusiji. Takodje, s obzirom da me tema zanima, vrlo rado bih ucestvovao u onome sto je Duja nazvao spajanjem sadrzaja koji se moze sacuvati u novi clanak, sto sam ja predlozio i u nominaciji. Medjutim, cvrsto verujem da ove potpuno pogresne i ocigledno zbunjujuce oznake treba ukloniti. Hvala na paznji. Pozdrav, Meelosh13:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for you initial support for the deletion of the external links (part of ). I cinsider myself a consenses editor and will work with you and others to improve this article, Buffadren18:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your data extension and I was thinking of using it on my wiki. OTOH, as you note, much of the same functionality is available through the semantic wiki project. I'm trying to decide which one to use. Data extension has the advantage of being simpler and probably will work on older software (I have to run PHP4). Semantic clearly has a strong support base, however. So, are you planning on continuing to develop Data? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Israeld (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Јас сум 100% сигурен оној користник Davu.leon је шиптар. Каков американец би сумњел што сторе во Клечка (кога 99% западњаци не го познаваат селото), а да верува со рака на бабин гроб дека све во Рачак се стори исто како западните педераси напишија. Сега почнав една голема расправа со него ама во пораката моја ми ја прати, „живеел таму„, во "Kosova". Просечниот енглез или американец нема појма дека тоа е номинативно Албанското име, нити се бригаат, никој би можел да направи таква грешка, иако цело време се занимава кај шиптарите. Берувај ми, пасправата е за џабе против него, албанец је. Evlekis10:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of persistent edit warring on Srebrenica massacre, I have proposed that a straw poll be taken regarding one of the issues involved—namely, how to title the section currently named "Alternative views". This will help us to determine whether there is a consensus on what to title this section, or at least a consensus on what not to call it. The straw poll can be found at Talk:Srebrenica_massacre#Straw poll on "Alternative views" section. I have posted this announcement to each of the 19 users who have made multiple edits to Srebrenica massacre this year. —Psychonaut13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Given that the Srebrenica massacre article seems doomed to get stuck on endless discussion on details (such as the current unproductive discussion on the peripheral issue of what to call Mackenzie et al.) I've proposed a 'Fresh Start', setting out some basic principles which should help us to make some real progress with the article. Unfortunately, so far no one seems willing to support such an initiative. I would much appreciate if you took a look at it and gave some comments. RegardsOsli7310:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Slavica Ecclestone. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu16:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nikola for helping me in my cause against Tar-Elenion and his sockpuppets. Im not so experienced with Wikipedia with the rules and routines.
What can i do against him, as he reverts my edits from several IP:s (all from Australia) which makes him not brake the 3RR rule? One of the IP:s he is using made an accusation on me on the Administrators Board, [2] , his knowledge of the rules clearly reveals that it is a user who is experienced with Wikipedia which clearly makes it a sockpuppet. Paulcicero16:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Please remain civil, the behaviour you just exhibited on Talk:Roger Joseph Boscovich calling me a trollis unacceptable as this is personal insult and pure slander. If you continue with this behaviour I will be forced to report you. Tar-Elenion13:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've noticed that you were once in a dispute with Emir Arven, where he regularly used personal attacks against you, and made derogatory references about Serbs. I just thought you might like to contribute to the current RFC on him. That's all. Have a nice day, mate. —KingIvan09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Preuzeo sam sa clanka o samom Sankt Peterburgu (koji je nominovan za izabrani clanak). Kao sto i sam znas kada smo pisali upravi Beograda sa razlicitih adresa smo sakupili razlicite informacije o tome sa kojim gradovima Beograd ima saradnju, bratimljenje i sl. Neki izvori iz grada su smatrali da se pod time podrazumeva samo poslednjih 5 godina ali svi ugovori potpisani u tom periodu ukljucujuci i neke nebitne poput pisma o namerama. Iz nekih ranijih godina je jako tesko dobiti podatke o takvim manjim ugovorima a pretpostavljam da od tada datira i ova saradnja sa SP. Avala16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ja sam im slao par mailova prosle godine i dobio razlicite informacije. Niti jedan odgovor nije ukljucivao bratimljenja iz ranijih godina. Jednom su mi odgovorili samo za Cikago a jednom su mi poslali listu nekih ugovora potpisanih u proteklih par godina. Zbog toga naravno imam razlog da sumnjam da je lista koju imamo potpuna. Bilo bi lepo da nadjemo nekog malo ozbiljnijeg u gradu ali nisam siguran ko bi to mogao da bude ako ovi iz informativne sluzbe nisu. Avala12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ne ali se spominje Dizeldorf - Sporazum o saradnji, februar 2004. godine koji npr. nije na listi. Inace lista se odnosi samo na period izmedju 2000. i 2005. godine i u njoj se pored Dizeldorfa nalaze i Moskva, Kijev, Milano, Banja Luka, Cikago i Ljubljana i Zagreb. Pretpostavljam da ugovor sa Sankt Peterburgom datira iz nekog ranijeg perioda. Avala14:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikola
Someone recently started stalking me here on wiki, if you look at his contributions you can see that its pretty much just revert warring, here is his ip
124.185.183.180. I also suspect that its the suckpuppet of Ivan Kricancic, on of the IP:s edits include putting up a picture of kricancic:s brother on a wikipage.
Could you please help me with this, what should i do to get him banned?
Paulcicero17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do not under any circumstances attempt to "get" someone "banned". See WP:DR for appropriate steps to take. Banning is only done by ArbCom and/or Jimbo; it is not a step to be taken lightly. If you have any questions or need any assistance please message me on my talk page. KillerChihuahua?!?13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TENC is not a RS; they are known for violating copyright. Please attempt in all cases to find an alternate source for any information you are attempting to sourve via TENC. KillerChihuahua?!?13:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were reported for a WP:3RR violation regarding Račak incident. Because of a late response, you were not blocked. However, this article falls under the purview of the Kosovo arbitration case, and in the future any disruptive edits to Kosovo-related articles may result in a swift block. So please be careful and discuss controversial changes on the article's talk page first. —dgiestc02:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4 reverts in under 24 hours: [3][4][5][6], plus one partial revert: [7]
I'm not going to block you, but revert warring, especially on an article under ArbCom sanction is quite likely to get you blocked in the future. —dgiestc21:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Nikola Smolenski,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.236.230 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I tried for protection, but administrator seems to think we should discuss with this vandalistic idiot, although he does not want discussion! Any suggestions, except changing back article every time he goes on loose?--Methodius17:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I remeber you have agreed with me in the past that the National Flag should be first. I do not know what has changed with your position on the topic. I think that calling for Duja was unneccessary. You could have changed your position and reverted it yourself, of course after presenting arguments in favour of your position. That has not been the case, so you asked on of the admins to do your dir** work for you. Flag that is on the article Serbia is the state one, but Flags in the article Flag of Serbia and their order is another thing. Please contact me with some explanation. -- Imbris22:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Beovoz.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot20:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Horseshoe is complete fiction. Kosovo Albanians were not mistreated throughout the 1990s (at least, no more than Serbs were), and the only reason for their phlight are actions of terrorist KLA which they created and NATO who allied with it.
I see you discovered WP:FAR#Belgrade. Do you perchance have access to „Arhitektonska enciklopedija Beograda XIX i XX veka" Slobodana Gise Bogunovica, so that we can source the architectural part? The best I came up with is an interview with the author [8], which contains enough data for a summary, but it's somewhat stupid to source from the interview rather than from the book. Duja►09:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea i no all that but in alot of countries there wasnt any info on the song being plagiarised. I live in Australia and there was nothing about the song being plagiarised, just that Serbia won the contest and if its like that in Australia it would be like that in alot of other countries eg. USA, Canada.
Removing POV tags from articles with a bias against Bosniaks/Albanians, claiming that Kosova Albanians and Muslims weren't mistreated at all during the 1990's.
Please do not add claims that Workers' Aid for Bosnia was involved in, or supported, ethnic cleansing, without any references, and with the edit summary "Better description". This claim sounds highly unlikely, and would certainly need a strong reference for its inclusion. Warofdreamstalk17:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, can you, please, not slash users' contribution on the talk pages?
As I've notice, you had a custom of inserting of your contributions/disagreements into somebody's previous message.
That way you're slashing his/hers messagetext, and it's hard for others to follow the flow of discussion. We cannot easily follow who said/wrote what and when (in fact, not at all). We have to "dig" through the history of the talk page.
If you find certain line that you disagree, than do as following:
- a) don't insert your message inside somebody elses message.
- b1), you can put your message at the bottom of the discussion, below all other message of the section like
==Discussion about blahbla==
message - userA
message - userB (the one you disagree with)
message - userC
message - userA
message - userNikola Smolenski
- b2) below the message of the user, whose message you find "problematic" and "disputable"
==Discussion about blahbla==
message - userA
message - userB (the one you disagree with)
:message - userNikola Smolenski's reply, disagreement
message - userC
message - userA
With inserting of the sign : , you're moving your text to the right, making it "distinguishable" from previous text. But this "marking" shows that you want to respond to somebody's message.
Than, if you find certain line in a whole text of some user's message "disputable", than do as following:
Copy the line (or just part of line, don't copy whole part if it's too long) of disputable contribution as a part of your message. Mark that quotation with '' two apostrophs at the beginning and at the end of quote, as well as with quotation marks, ".
(userB' part you disagree with): "This wasn't Serbian at the ..."
(Nikola Smolenski's part): Yes, it was. ~~~~
In a code of the page, this should look like this:
"''This wasn't Serbian at the...''"
Yes, it was. Because, blah, blah... ~~~~
I hope this'll help. Please, follow these instructions. We aren't children, we can disagree, we can adore, love, be indifferent, dislike or hate ("to death" and "to the bone") someone , but we have to follow some rules.
Wiki-discussions and talks ARE NOT the graffiti-war on the citywalls. Kubura23:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You removed my fact tag with the comment "Citation already provided. If you don't know Serbian, learn it or have someone translate it". As this is the English language Wikipedia you are wrong. I also find the comment slightly uncivil. The onus is on you to present a reliable source to back up the claim in the article. I have removed the claim until this can be done. Best wishes. --John15:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without being able to read Serbian, I cannot verify for myself what the source says, nor can I evaluate whether it is likely to fulfil WP:RS. I strongly suspect that it does not. "Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information than to have information without a source."
Finally, you may wish to review WP:VAND in the light of your statement "some people consider removal of sourced information vandalism". I invite you to strike through that unnecessary slur (by implication), and I will see you in article talk. --John16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't continue to add this info; it cannot be in the article unless a reliable source is provided. Your offer to translate the Serbian reference is a kind one, but the language issue is only part of the problem. Please read WP:RS and you will see what I mean. Best wishes, --John21:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, you've already been notified several times that the so-called "website mirrors" on emperors-clothes.com are nothing of the sort - they are blatant copyright violations. This was discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#Discussion 6 and you were told by several admins - not just myself - that those links cannot be used. WP:COPY is very clear on this: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." You have repeatedly restored those links after their removal, despite knowing that they are copyright violations, and I've therefore blocked you temporarily per WP:COPY: "In extreme cases of contributors continuing to post copyrighted material after appropriate warnings, such users may be blocked from editing to protect the project." Please do not attempt to restore those links again or you will face a longer block. -- ChrisO16:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you are repeating that story for the Nth time, and you are wrong every time when you repeat it. You may also note that I did not post any copyrighted material, but only links to copyrighted material. If you would have the tiniest shred of integrity, now would be the time to start removal of all links to archive.org. You may start here. Nikola17:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both issues are covered in WP:COPY. I'll quote the relevant bits for you: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". If you knowingly and intentionally post a link to a copyright violation, you can be prosecuted for violating copyright, even if you personally haven't copied the offending item. This is not a theoretical concern - it's already been the basis of numerous lawsuits against file sharing websites. As for archive.org, an explicit exception is made for this website: "Linking to the Wayback Machine, for example, is an acceptable external link on Wikipedia". emperors-clothes.com is not an Internet archive - it's a conspiracy theory website and the ABC News link in particular is being used as source material for a 9/11 conspiracy theory, not as part of some archive. This has already been explained to you. You may disagree with it, but you're not at liberty to violate an important policy that was adopted to protect the project from legal liabilities. -- ChrisO17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I shall put that last quote in its proper context for you, with emphasis which shows why you are wrong: The copyright status of Internet archives in the United States is unclear, and Linking to the Wayback Machine, for example, is an acceptable external link on Wikipedia. Thus a link to the archive of abcnews.com in TENC's 9-11 archive is equally acceptable external link on Wikipedia. Nikola17:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wayback Machine is an incorporated non-profit organisation with close links to state archives on both sides of the Atlantic and official state recognition (see [9]). TENC is a conspiracy theory outlet run as a personal website by a non-notable political activist. The two are about as different as you could get - they're simply not comparable. -- ChrisO17:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, save for a few cases where archive.org may have permission to archive web pages, they violate copyright equally, which is what this is about. Whether TENC is a conspiracy theory outlet or an non-profit organisation is not at the stake here.
If Google cache, which archive derivatives of webpages is fair use, TENC's archive which archives non-derivative versions of webpages is even more so. You have less and less ground to stand on. By the way, I noticed that you have now edited WP:COPY, creating major change in policy without any consultation with other editors. Nikola17:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nikola, let me put this as simply as possible: we are not allowed to insert links to copyright violations on personal websites. As for WP:COPY, the policy has not changed at all. -- ChrisO17:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, that is simply not true. At the time when you blocked me, official copyright policy of wikipedia stated that we are allowed to insert links to copyright violations on personal websites, so long as said copyright violations are a part of an internet archive on the said site.
(de-indent, but replying to Nikola) Nikola, whether you like it or not, consensus, and, in some areas of policy, the consensus of sysops, is how we make decisions on wikipedia. It's just the way we operate around here. You're free to disagree with that consensus, but you're not free to act against it, doubly so where legal concerns are at play.--Chaser - T21:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Although the links in question are technically copyright violation, linking to website mirrors is generally considered acceptable and widely used on Wikipedia.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Although the links in question are technically copyright violation, linking to website mirrors is generally considered acceptable and widely used on Wikipedia, despite the fact that practically every website mirror violates copyright.
Decline reason:
Even if you're right about this (and my cursory review suggests that the link in question really is prohibited by our copyright policy), three sysops (Chris, KillerChihuahua, and apparently Yamla), plus Doron have all commented in good faith that the external links violate copyright. It's necessary to follow that consensus unless it can be changed through discussion; reverting ChrisO isn't discussion. Finally, one unblock review per block, please.— Chaser - T18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
If you mean the Forensic Science International paper mentioned in the earlier mediation, it's an unauthorised copy - i.e. a copyvio - hosted on emperors-clothes.com (see diff). If I remember rightly, Elsevier is only available on an institutional basis, not to individual subscribers. The sales portal is at http://eselect.sciencedirect.com/ . -- ChrisO07:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See my intervention at [[10]]. I still think that in order to justify the title, we need better examples. I think User:AndriyK has now unwittingly given you a good example of it. Agree?
After all, they are blaming the Russians for their hospitals and schools being targeted by Chechens. Interesting tidbit that you probably do not know: one of the first acts of Yushchenko as president of Ukraine was to dismiss the ethnically Moldavian mayor of Odessa (who was pro-Yanukovich, like 60% of the Odessa voters) with a Chechen. --Pan Gerwazy15:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose most people will notice that the Ukraine presidential election was just after Beslan, but we need to be careful there - there is a danger of Original Research. If we had a Ukrainian, Russian or West European source saying that the reference to Beslan was outrageous, we would be on safer ground. Where is User:Irpen? We desperately need a chapter there on the Chechen war and how it was perceived in the west and in "countries traditionally hostile to Russia". We need references on:
attempts to equate the independence claim of Chechnya with that of Poland and Ukraine. When we have those, we need counter-references comparing the situation to Kosovo, Transdnyistria, Abkhazia. And of course Tatarstan and Yakutia - to show that there is an alternative. I think you can help here.
attempts to highlight suspicions about terrorist activities actually performed by the Russian government, and omitting information that counterdicts it. I seem to remember a Russian officer who was captured by Basaev supporters and interviewed on Turkish television, claiming that the FSB was responsible for the apartment bombings. The fect that the same guy later retracted and claimed having been tortured into confessing something which he normally should have known nothing about, is not usually quoted in the Western press. Also Basaev is usually quoted as always having denied responsibility, which is not correct.
possible reasons for the bias with journalists: most western journalists operating from Moscow are still the old guard who grew up with Cold War mentality. Bias with politicians: oil and gas of course: see eg Trans-Caspian_Gas_Pipeline
how some things changed, for a short while, after Beslan. The following article created quite a furor among Western journalists: was there another side to the coin, after all? [11]
By the way, as you edit Russian-Chechen stuff, you will need to know that an important part of the Kasyanov-Kasparov opposition is or was (Anna Politkovskaya) actually convinced that Shamil Basaev was always an FSB (well, they say KGB of course) agent. It is also the best explanation for many of the otherwise contradictory conspiracy theories being thrown about. The point being that if someone points out these contradictios, they are in grave danger of being accused of Original Research. Do widjenja and keep up the good work!--Pan Gerwazy08:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave this as a warning, but having looked at it in more detail I have blocked you for 48 hours to enforce some stability. These articles are on probation, and you are edit warring over a copyright-violating and in any case completely unreliable website, continuing immediately after expiry of a block for doing the same thing. You need to learn and the article needs to stabilise. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:A_Call_for_Jihad_in_Bosnia.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C10:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "original research" you're right, I have no idea how much naloxone Moscow hospitals kept in stock, or if they had enough to treat the affected. Clearly that was conjecture, and should not have been included by me. If that was what you objected to, then I agree. If you objected to the statement about naloxone being the antidote (to fentanyl derivatives), I think that's a medically accepted fact.
But now I'm curious, did you mean that naloxone was used without success on the Moscow Siege patients, or that it was used successfully? I had the impression (from the article at that time) that the authorities didn't tell hospital workers how to treat the Siege victims, and not getting naloxone in time was the reason for the deaths. I suppose if the gas contained something in addition to fentanyl, treatment with naloxone might not have been enough, and that could have caused the deaths. Do you have any idea which it is?
Just wanted to say hi and also let you know I deleted some chunks of text over at Srebrenica Massacre. (Just who calls it 'Srebrenica Genocide', anyway? :-)
I tried to delete the details of the background war *on both sides*, as the article is way too long and I think we should at least try to keep the background snappy, although I totally understand what I see as your attempts to balance the ridiculous POV on the article. (The other day I added 'convicted war criminal' to Naser Oric, even though it's not something I actually think needs to be mentioned, just because the Serb general was referred to as 'indicted war criminal Milan Gvero' (who hasn't even been convicted yet!) -- incidentally, we may have found a compromise on that one.
It's great to have someone on there who isn't pro-Bosniak and knows more than I do about the actual facts (eg, I never knew that the thing about the ICTY 'concluding that attacks on Srebrenica had been made from day one' or whatever it was was actually not true), because it's obvious most of the editors on there (actually, I'd say Osli and myself are possibly the only ones interested in writing a NPOV article) are ridiculously POV.
A user called Paulcicero hopped on the other week and corrected a similar exaggeration; when I corresponded with him about it (thanking him, basically) he said he couldn't be bothered going on the page any more. I totally understand that -- I've had to leave it alone myself at times -- but like I say, it's great to have you on there (for as long as you can be bothered). Also, you might want to have a look at the suggestion I made at the bottom of Osli's talk page yesterday vis-a-vis maybe making a whole new article (sorry, my hyperlinking skills aren't that good so you'll just have to make your own way over there). Cheers Jonathanmills07:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and also -- do you have any useful info you could point me towards vis-a-vis Srebrenica? Actually I've probably seen a fair bit of it -- TENC, Antiwar, srpska-mreza and the like -- but if there's anything in particular that you think might help inform me so I can watch out for factual distortions over there, that would be great. Cheers Jonathanmills07:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, cheers for your response, Nikola -- didn't see it there for a while, actually (also I've been away from Wikipedia recently).
That article is just getting more and more farcical, man -- I don't know if I can really be bothered trying to keep up with all the distortions that keep cropping up, to be honest. Is there any way we can insist on a 'neutrality disputed' tag vis-a-vis administration, do you know? Cheers Jonathanmills16:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little thing to do before we can fully use Signoret's pictures of Solaris, all pictures you upload but one have credits of him (cf the watermark advice). Can you ask Mr Signoret to send you credit-free pictures, like I did with Cthulu's ? Cheers, BenduKiwiΦ20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
На пар места сам већ помињао да је идијотски ставити Твртка и Катарину Котроманић на страницу Bosniak на енглеском када Лоза Котроманића је била етнички Српска, и њени припадници причали су Српским језиком и писали ћирилицом. Династија Котроманића никада није имала везе са тим новим појмом бошњак, нити са исламом, нити са такозваним босанским језиком.
Hi again. It's probably a minor point, but there a discussion and vote going on at Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo:_terminology as to whether or not it's better to use Kosovo rather than Kosovan or Kosovar in the Wikipedia articles. Perhaps you have no interest, in which case sorry to bother you! DSuser15:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you help:
Nationalistic extremists like user:Jesuislafete are trying to delete the Category:Former Towns of RSK 1991-95
RSK was a region and it had borders and some history. We should know what towns were in its borders. The category is just information about this former entity that no longer exists.
Image:Flag_of_Serbia_construction_sheet.png has a minor error in it. Where it says 1/7 at the top, it should actually be 3/7 for consistency, as the width of the flag is already shown to be 3. Likewise for the bars on the right; they should be 2/3 as that is 1/3 of 2. -Oreo Priest14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sponsianus 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)==Reversal of my Fomenko edit==
Hi!
You reversed my Fomenko edit about coins. Fomenko does indeed claim that certain rulers are inventions. For instance here where he explicitly suggestes that English kings are reflections of Byzantine emperors, and also that earlier Byzantine emperors are reflections of later. "Reflection" means that the king is a literary construction as opposed to a real ruler, and consequently could not have struck coins. So whatever Fomenko's explanations, the fact remains that he discards the numismatical evidence for all "reflection" rulers. We had a discussion on the talk page whether Roman coins were able to identify with rulers, and I gave a lengthy survey of how Roman emperors identified themselves with three names on coins in many places. If you wish to elaborate your thesis, please feel free to do so on the discussion page, or else I will revert back in a couple of days. You must realise that Fomenko's theories are not accepted at all among any historians, numismatists etc and the very least Wikipedia can do is to state that his theories totally reject the work of thousands of numismatists. Best regards
Sponsianus12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
First of all, I am not sure if the word "commendable" is what you intended. If you really mean that my reaction was highly praiseworthy - thank you very much! But this does not change that your suggestion that I did original research is very far from the truth. There are thousands of historians who attribute ancient coins to historical characters, and what I did was little more than to point that out, quoting as an example how Roman emperors wrote their names on coins. Anybody can check that - such coins are in fact already displayed on Wikipedia.
I am not going to discuss with you whether Fomenko is wrong or not. The following question is the only relevant: Does Fomenko's new chronology mean that he claims that the works and conclusions of thousands of numismatists are fundamentally flawed?
Of course it does. And when you answer "yes" to that question, you also have to concede that the Wikipedia reader should be informed of this.
You have not read or commented on what I wrote on the talk page. All that you say is to say that I shall read Fomenko and things will be revealed. I have read enough of Fomenko to know that he claims certain ancient rulers are fictional inventions ("reflections") and fictional people do not strike coins. It is as simple as that.
As for expert assessments on Fomenko, there are very few such(outside Russia at least) for the reason that historians in general think they have better use for their time.
I shall revert back to my old version. Please give actual arguments on the talk page if you wish to contest this, I am confident that you will not start an edit war. Best regards,
Sponsianus20:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that one ruler - as several "reflections" - would strike totally different coins is of course what separates Fomenko from all other numismatists, who believe that with few exceptions rulers had one set of names and used these everywhere, so that for instance emperor Julian used the names Fl(avius) Cl(audius) Julianus on all his coins and struck no other coins.
There are much more basic objections - you should know that there are no coin experts in the world who support Fomenko - such as the fact that coins generally match the descriptions of rulers in sources. Fomenko claims that coins of Edward the Confessor of England and Manuel Comnenus of Bysans are reflections of the same ruler. Not only are their coins of wholly different types: see here and here, but Manuel's coins are found in Greece and Turkey, Edward's in England. None of them are generally found in the territories that separate their kingdoms. This as contrast to the coins of Julian and other early Roman emperors, whose coins - looking rather similar - are found from Britain to Syria.Such indications explain why everybody except Fomenko - who is a layman in these questions - think the idea that these are the same king is ridiciluous.Sponsianus08:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again!
A last reply - I have read Fomenko's excerpt on Byzantine and English history being the same, and I have read several summaries and comments, including Kasparov's, who is of course pro-Fomenko. His theses are so extraordinary that this is more than enough - you should be aware that there are no historical experts in the world who support Fomenko, not a single peer-reviewed paper has been published internationally in his defense. I entertained myself by scrutinising his paper on Byzans and England "parallells" and found that most of his so-called "matches" in regnal years are ultimately random. The later Byzantine emperors had such a complicated chronology (there were interregnums, joint emperors, junior emperors etc) that for most of Fomenko's examples, you could easily produce several alternative number for their regnal years taking only the same liberties as he did. I could send you that file if you wish. There are few scholars who take their time attempting to refute Fomenko.
The issue in question is however very straightforward and logical - if as Fomenko says the ancient Roman empire did not exist, then all Roman coinage must be explained in another way, and all those very detailed analyses (styles, hoard findings, minting techniques, geographical distribution) which numismatists have aligned with the established chronology are most seriously flawed. You can either trust Fomenko or virtually all numismatists in the world - and the readers of Wikipedia should be aware that the new chronology is in direct contrast to numismatics as we know it.
That's mostly what I wrote, with a few specifications that many coins (for instance Roman coins with three royal names or several family members on one coin) give very detailed information about who struck them. So my addition was definitely justified.
Anyway, nice talking to you Sponsianus14:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.236.230 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
){kind=link}
