Franck Ver Stut

Hello, and welcome to the English Wikipedia.

You might wish to know that we already have an article New Chronology (Fomenko).

Also, I note that your contribution is signed as if it was written by Fomenko. If this is directly translated from Fomenko's work, it is unlikely that Wikipedia can use this material. The reason is that any copyright issues give us problems with the GFDL license under which we release material to general use. Charles Matthews 10:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you were just trying to experiment, then use the sandbox instead. Thank you. . even if there was some notability to Fomenko's stuff, it should be placed in its proper article, and not quoted verbatim. You are in violation of Wikipedia:Copyright. dab (ᛏ) 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

if you want to contribute seriously, write a coherent section about the point you want to make, in your own words. You may be blocked for uploading copyrighted text. I also draw your attention to WP:3RR: if you revert to your edits for more than three times, you will also be blocked from editing. Unless you try to make clear what you want to say on the talk page, your material will not be kept in the article. dab (ᛏ) 17:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Welcome to Wikipedia.

When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

I'm afraid most if not all of your contributions to date are unlikely to survive. Those that consist of a lengthy, unformatted essay added near the start of an existing article are a bad risk, particularly if they appear to promote a particular point of view.

I hope you'll get involved with other articles and discussions whatever happens to these ones. But you are off to a rather bad start. I'd suggest you take a wikibreak from editing the articles in question and see what the community does with your contributions. Perhaps a look at the NPOV tutorial would be a good thing too.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp. We normally do this on discussion pages as a courtesy, but not in articles. I notice that you have yet to contribute to a discussion page. This is the right place to discuss disputed edits, rather than the article itself or the edit summaries.

Some other links I hope you find useful:

• Welcome is a good place to start.
• Wikipedia:How does one edit a page gives editing help.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style gives formatting info.
• Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines tell about the principles we operate on. It's important, but don't try to read it all now.
• Wikipedia:Help covers a broad range of useful topics.
• Wikipedia:Village pump is a place to ask questions.
• Wikipedia:Show preview explains how to double-check your edits before saving.

Please feel free to drop me a question on my talk page if there's anything you think I can help with. Andrewa 17:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

well, Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, not a journal for scientific breakthrough. As soon as Fomenko's view becomes more accepted by mainstream science, this will be reflected on Wikipedia also, but not earlier. Until then, we have New Chronology (Fomenko), so you can hardly say the existence of his view is censored. I would also ask you to review WP:NOT and WP:DR for a better insight into how Wikipedia works. thanks, dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Agree 100% that those are two very good pages to look at.

We regularly do get people starting off on the wrong foot like this. I wonder whether part of the problem might be that some critics of Wikipedia imply, and sometimes try to demonstrate, that Wikipedia's information quality is low because you can write anything you like here?

That's just not true, as we have been seeing. There are valid criticisms of Wikipedia, see why Wikipedia is not so great, and our quality control is not 100%, but we do have both policies and ways of enforcing them.

As I said before, I hope you get excited about this project and involved in it. You obviously have expertise, and a passion for determining and communicating the truth in your field. That's a good start, but one thing remains: Do you have an interest in being a contributing member of this particular community, in our particular project to collect information and make it available?

I find this a particularly exciting project, and hope you do too. But it's not for everyone. To find out whether it could be for you, you need to understand a little more of how we work, our strengths, weaknesses, joys and frustrations. I hope you won't let this bad start prevent you from doing this.

One of the challenges for someone with cutting-edge expertise is walking the line between up-to-the-minute accuracy and original research. Perhaps wikipedia:autobiography might help a little here. It's not exactly what we're talking about, but there are principles in common. As a Wikipedian, it's best to cite the work of other authorities rather than yourself. Let others do the job of citing your own research publications, and reporting any original ideas they contain.

If you feel that your work should be mentioned, there's no possible objection to citing it in an article talk page. But then it won't happen until someone else comes along who agrees with you about both the facts and their importance. That's community. If that doesn't appeal, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you.

You might also have a look at rhetoric.

Does all that help any? Andrewa 04:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Reduce hearsay, add valid facts - respect NPOV

Salutations Gentlemen Wikipedians,

Anti-Fomenko “Damage Control” WiKiPedia page is openly biased; valid pro-Fomenko arguments are not admitted. Suggest the strict respect of NPOV.

Some remarks:

Frederick Barbarossa allegedly missed by Fomenko in “dynastic parallelism” fig.r6.5.1. is explicitly mentioned in the descriptive part of Annex 6.5. on p.534 of “History..”, ISBN 2913621058.., this layout mistake will be corrected in the next edition of the book.

The Lecture 2002 of H.Jeffreys vividly shows that in order to suite “ancient” datings of eclipses Moon-Earth system parameters have to be artificially twisted (fig.6), the length of the day and night changes at random. Tidal friction parameter stays linear constant, if you use Fomenko’s datings. Astronomical software calculates exact date to a minite, place to a meter and phase of solar eclipses up to 16800 years backwards or forwards. These exact calculations do not fit the any of the datings provided by allegedly “ancient”, in fact mediaeval astronomers. To suite “ancient” datings they to stage a convoluted astronomical circus with unknown forces at play. There was NO TOTAL ECLIPSE in Babylon on 15.04.136 BC, look at fig.4 qv. Therefore the whole chronology attached to it is not valid.

The Lecture 2002 of H.Jeffreys also mentions the same source as Fomenko, i.e. translations of Babilonian datable texts by A.J.Sachs. Any astronomer will confirm that the number of astronomical units, i.e. planets and constellations quoted in these texts is not sufficient for a unique dating of such horoscopes.

“Moscow as III Rome is a formula”, recognized by official history of Russia. Was in use under Ivan III, alleged reign 1452-1505, introduced by Filofei (Philoteus), Russian monk.

Sincerely,

Franck Ver Stut

PS: We will supply you with datings of full solar eclipses in observed in Babilon, at request.

This all still sounds more like original research than encyclopedia material to me. But you're getting the idea. Some more references would help. Andrewa 00:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)