Hello to all.

I subscribed to this list in order to give my word about what I see some people perceive as a problem made by my actions. By the way, I tried to subscribe yesterday, but it seems that that didn't work for some reason.

I noticed that there are two separate issues here: the NPOV of the articles and the links on them. I think that they are separate enough that I could discuss them separately.

About NPOV: the site is like it is, some of its contents might be "propagandistic, wrong and/or biased", it might even contain, as someone said, falsifications of history, but the particular articles that I copied from the site are not such. Some of them contain simply raw data that has no POV at all, and those that were not such I NPOVed and, after I was kindly asked by Eloquence, I NPOVed them even more then I think is needed. And they could be even further NPOVed by other contributors. I think that this subject is closed.

Now, about the links.

First, some people misunderstood the issue: these links are not ==External links== which, of course, (at least that is my opinion) could be freely removed by anyone who doesn't think that they belong where they do. These are links to the site which is the ==Source== of the article, from which the articles are copied, which is the same case as with the articles that are copied from, say, FOLDOC. As I understood it, such links are requirement for copying the data from the site (I used standard permission text, you can see it at [[User:Nikola Smolenski/FreeSrpska]]).

I understand that some people don't like to see links to such a site here, or perhaps anywhere on the web, while at the same time don't mind if there are no articles about the topics. But some other people don't mind the links and like the articles (and I'm one of them, obviously). I can say that article about [[Prince Lazar]] is already twice its size, and it did not exist at all before I copied it from FS. As I said already, the articles would take days instead of hours to make if they were not copied from the site. And some of the pictures from them would be very hard or impossible to find elsewhere.

Personaly, I doubt that anyone will click on that links in order to find more information about the subject (the article is based on a text from the site; obviously, there is no more information about the subject on the site) or in order to find information on similar subjects (they are warned that the site is biased; and if they don't mind reading biased data then why shold we mind?).

So, to conclude it, I don't think that extracting NPOV data from POV sites is something wrong or that it will hurt credibility of Wikipedia. To the contrary, I think that we could be proud for being able to remake even such sources into brilliant prose.

Finally, I feel the need to stress that, to the best of my knowledge, I have broke no Wikipedia policy. It is, again to the best of my knowledge, allowed to copy to WP any material that violates no copyright law, is NPOV, and encyclopedic in nature, which is what I did. Perhaps new policies have to be made, but I did nothing wrong.