User talk:Tuomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


Greetings! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. You can sign your name with ~~~~. If you have questions or doubts of any sort, do not hesitate to post them on the Village Pump, somebody will respond ASAP. Other helpful pages include:

Have fun! --Jiang 01:50, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tuomas!

You did some rewriting on Finland, which is good. Although you should know that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries that tries to give all country articles a common look. So we should split the paragraph about politics and "subdivisions", in this case provinces. -- Jniemenmaa 08:49, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

Go along!

I'm (or was) concerned that 1/ geographical subdivisions (maakunnat) (Uusimaa, Tavastia, Ostrobothnia and whatever the anglified/latinized names are) weren't distinguished from 2/ subdivisions of central government (läänit, kihlakunnat, maistraatit) or 3/ subdivisions of local government (municipalities and "regions" - reformed maakunnat), not the least in the case of Åland.

(Needless to say: I find the subdivisions of central government less important for foreign readers.)

I do also find it particularly confusing to put in a paragraph on the judicial system under the heading "politics".

But moulding all countries in the same form is most certainly better than the repeated demolition of considerate article dispositions, which I think I've encountered already quite a few times here.

The question is: What's the most important? To follow the guideline's proposed choices of headings, or to adopt to what's important and relevant in the case of Finland? Should I suppose it being too presumptuous of me to propose the headings "Central government" and "Local government" in the case the common look-and-taste requires corresponding number of headings? -- Tuomas 01:22, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I said the things you wrote were good. I only wanted to point out that there was wikiproject for all countries. If you have problems with the layout presented there, maybe you would like to express that on the projects talk page?
Now, if you do think the current article on Finland doesn't tell people what is important and relevant, then you should change it! Be bold! -- Jniemenmaa 08:54, Aug 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've thought back and forth, and at least for the moment come to the conclusion that I stand by my previous change. It reduces the look-and-taste similarity, I agree to that, but it reflects the facts on the ground (as I see them). I considered introducing the heading Historical provinces - and am still tempted - but did not, since that would be even more of a breach against the guidelines. The guidelines say that administrative subdivisions are of interest, and it would then maybe be confusing for the comparing reader to find the historical provinces in their place.

I do however realize that the incongruence invites to corrective edits, and it would maybe be better if I make the change before someone else... ;-)))

--Tuomas 02:39, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tuomas,

Your initial comments on Graculus's nomination are appropriate, in my opinion. But you don't need to defend your opinion, or comment on 172's actions: providing links to the edit war is sufficient. Strictly speaking, you should only post if you're concerned that Graculus would abuse his sysop powers, but I try to make a habit of not speaking strictly ;-).

As edit wars go, this is pretty small potatoes. Check out New Imperialism (on August 1) and Catholicism (on July 22 and 23) for examples of some recent edit wars.

If you believe that a user is acting inappropriately, the best thing to do is to save a catalog of that user's actions privately on your computer; if the actions continue to the point where you think that user should be banned, you can email Jimbo Wales. See his post on the mailing list [1].

Also, just thought I should mention: 172 is at the top of the list of Administrators because it's arranged in alphabetical order; his position on the list does not indicate any special status.

Cheers, Cyan 03:58, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Livonia

The reason why I put back the "region" into Livonia is that Livonia is much larger than the land where Livonians (the Finno-Ugric tribe) lived. In 13th century, the land of Livonians was conquered by German Sword Brothers. Then, Sword Brothers were named Livonian Order and later Livonia started to mean all the lands eventually conquered by Sword Brothers (only 10-20% of which were lands of Livonians).

I tried to put an explanation into 2nd paragraph. Feel free to change that if you can explain it better. Andris 01:49, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no. I will not change anything. (In any case not now!) I think the wikipedia:be bold mentality is exaggerated. You live there. I have a faint recollection of what my teacher said in school – way back! I was just curious! I compare with entities such as Prussia and Finland/Finland Proper. The latter once was a tiny little stretch of Baltic shore, and see: today it's a great and mighty realm. ;->> I just noticed the change from (to me) more precise wording "was the historical land of the L." to the (to me) vague and evasive wording "is a historical region". /Tuomas 07:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Improving Readability

Tuomas, Just a note that I replied to your message on my talk page. I'll take a look at your other requests as well now. -- Kowh 16:54, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've just made some minor modifications to your user page. Considering how personal such a page is, please revert any changes I made that accidentally changed the meaning of what you were trying to say. -- Kowh 17:13, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm concerned that I may have changed the meaning of the 69 meter decent portion of River Vuoksi. I'd recommend you rework that paragraph, using a similar structure to keep it more readable than the original. -- Kowh 17:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There, I've now looked over all the articles you had mentioned on your user page and tried to improve anything glaring. The articles can no doubt be improved further by others. If you would like me to look at anything else, or even to discuss phrasing of something, by all means please drop me a line. -- Kowh 18:02, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've checked over the next two... -- Kowh 12:47, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! (again!) :-))
It's an important (although not flattering) experience to discover a few of the misunderstandings that our usage of a lingua franca results in. /Tuomas 12:55, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed a tendency to use "why" when "which is why" would be more appropriate. I've made this edit in most of the articles I've looked at... -- Kowh 12:57, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the next two, but didn't make any changes. -- Kowh 14:11, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki talk:Europe

By the way, Wik probably 'found' the talk page, because I politely asked him at User talk:Wik. Cheers, Pædia | talk 17:54, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

Let's hope so! ;-> /Tuomas 17:57, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(Laughing out loud!) Thank you, Pædia | talk 18:02, 2004 May 5 (UTC)

[edit] American values

Just saw your comments on Talk:American values. It's not that it's widely understood; in fact, it's the opposite. As far as I can tell, no such thing exists--it's one of those concepts that everyone invokes but nobody can define. As such, it would be an impossible thing to have an encyclopedia entry about, so I just sent it to American exceptionalism, which has some of the same content in a more coherent form. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 23:46, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, well... I don't really know what to say about "impossible things to have an encyclopedia entry about". :) If it's a concept that everyone invokes but nobody defines, couldn't that be stated — before a see-also link to American exceptionalism, maybe with addition of some values that most or all Americans really would agree to be American values? /Tuomas 14:26, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)


since the following is not easily available at the article´s talk page, let me add it here.

FINLAND-SWEDISH

[edit] the introductory paragraph

The following sentence is simplified, as it according to my judgement is too convoluted for the introductory paragraph:

From the administrative centralization of the 17th century forwards until the mid-19th century it was the sole language of jurisdiction, administration and higher education in Finland, however in some respects only together with Latin. In 1892 Finnish as an official language (already granted 1863) gained a status fully equal to that of Swedish, and at Finland's independence in 1917 Finnish clearly dominated in government and society.

It's of limited relevance to remind an international audience that the then-international language of science, Latin, was used beside the local language in education. The domestic debate in Finland, and particularly its history, makes it motivated to remind about this - in Finland! ...and it's of course not wrong, But we must think on the poor reader who is not to be confused. After reformation, the importance of Latin in Finland were not at all comparable to the situation in the remaining Catholic lands.

The reference to the language edict by Charles XI is here first of all misdated, as the great administrative centralization was during the 30-Years War; and maybe more important, the reference is also misrepresenting King Charles's recasting of judicial procedure, church government, and central administration (including the riddarhuset) which for sure aimed at a unitary nation with one language being used in all parts of government, but it was aimed at the territorial gains in the south Swedish Pomerania, Scania etc, and elitist officials from the Continent who wrote and spoke Danish, Dutch and Low German also in official contexts. References to that language edict, and the interpretations of it, ...and the less benevolent effects of it for Finns in what remained of Sweden after 1808/09... are surely more relevant in the articles on Fennomans, Finland's language strife and the Sweden Finns.

I restore the introductory paragraph to the following wording:

Finland-Swedish is a variety of Swedish. Until 1863 it was the sole language of jurisdiction, administration and higher education in Finland. In 1892 Finnish became an official language and gained a status comparable to that of Swedish, and at Finland's independence in 1917 Finnish clearly dominated in government and society.

/Tuomas 18:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


The "simplified" introductory above oversimplified the facts into untruthfulness.

Firstly, during the Middle Ages and up to administrative centralization which was completed by Gustav II Adolph's government, administrative language situation in Finland was semi-anarchic. Finnish was much used. German and Latin were approximately as important as Swedish. Finland did actually not have any centralized administration besides the bishopric of Turku, which actually mostly used Latin and Finnish.

Which was not at all unique for Finland, as I am sure you know. /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So what. We have here an article that purports to describe the position of SWEDISH as language in Finland. Not an article that DIRECTLY deals with position of Finnish as language in Finland. I require that the position of Swedish is presented as truthfully and properly as possible. The fact remains, In Middle Ages, Swedish has a position that was nowhere as high as later after 1600´s. Therefore, those two eras shall NOT be dubbed into one. I believe Finnish as language of administration etc was more important than Swedish up to 1600´s. Do you agree? Or, do you have counterarguments and facts in its support?213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Actual contacts with Rikssverige were scarce. Österlandia was very separate from Sweden in almost all practical terms. Gustav Vasa made first attempts towards regular secular administration, but his "fogde"s were compelled to use much Finnish, since taxes were anyway rather difficult to collect from unwilling payers, and use of incomprehensible language (Swedish) in inner areas of Finland would have frustrated tax-collection efforts into failure. Gustav, after all, was a practical guy who wanted the money and was not so eager on principles, language ideologies etc. (Gustav was a Swede.)

This is stupid anti-Swedish arguments which reflects poorly on us if allowed to take up space in an article on a 5%-minority in Finland. Finland and the Finns have the moral high ground on our side until we start to demonize the Finland-Swedes. /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have not suggested adding Gustav's fogdes into the article. Those facts are to feature the context in this TALK, in order to let discussants understand what happened - regarding to use of administrative language. I do not bother with moral grounds etc. I require factual correctness.

Of course, you are welcome to present a case of pity - however, some elsewhere, thank you. Factual encyclopedia is not a place to twist facts to say that even before 1600´s, evil Swedes succeeded to use their language as sole one in Finland. Since that simply was not true.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I oppose saying that before 1600's Swedish was anything like SOLE administrative language. The key word here is "sole".

This is (almost) perfectly allright. But as you point out yourself, there wasn't much of administration beside the (Catholic) Church and the governor in Viipuri before Reformation. The point is, you have to keep the introductory paragraph brief and inviting for the reader. And as the

Then, a chapter of history is needed in the article.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

language of laws was Swedish, not Finnish, and the language used in communication from the state administration out to the provinces was mainly Scandinavian and in any case not Finnish, there is

Actually, I have believed that even throughout 1600-1860´s, judges needed to explain the court proceedings to their Finnish-speaking listeners, such as the accused (convicted), plaintiffs, and Finnish-speaking juries, in Finnish. Therefore, I somewhat doubt how correct is to say that the language of jurisdiction has been Swedish. Perhaps, "language of protocols of jurisdiction", would be a correct expression...213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comm outside (adm): You need firstly to understand that before Gustav Vasa, there actually was very little communication between Finland and Sweden. Whereas there was much administration inside Finland, or more properly, inside a castle province, inside a parish, etc. E.g, tax-collection on behalf of castle lord and by fogdes. And I am rather sure that most of that communication took place in Finnish.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

no reason to go into specific details in the introduction. You do surely know as well as I about the first occurences of translations to Finnish. /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Daily administration has all the time been made orally to large extent. You speak much about written language.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

in 1860´s Finnish already became an official language, thus is is not correct to cite that as to 1893. 1893 was the point when Finnish as official language became fully equal with Swedish.

While I do understand what you mean, I beg to disagree strongly on the point of wording. Finnish became fully equal with Swedish in the administration after it had got a legally equal position in 1892.


Actually, I did not check that 1892/93 earlier (I was too trusting). Yesterday I went to pages of Suomalaisuuden Liitto. In their dateline listing, actually next to nothing happened in 1892 or 1893. The equalization happened in 1902. Please check the facts, and furnish the claims with evidence.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


It's questionable exactly when the languages de facto were equal in standing, but it's undisputable that it was at least some years into the 20th century, like after the parliamentary reform of 1906

Crap. Prlm reform had nothing to do with legal equalness. In dateline of SL, there was a legislative act of equalness in 1902. I think that date shoulde be used.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

for instance. But I must admit that the wording I restored was[2] unlucky: It's of course not the year 1892 but 1863 that's relevant for the status as official language, although the Language Ordinance required a gradual introduction of Finnish – over a period of twenty years, was it? /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was 20 yrs, intended to completed 1883. But unsurprisingly some delay took place, thus 1886 (three yrs late) a new act was in force. However, against the original intent, it did not guarantee full equalness. Equality was waited upon up until 1902.

(And, 1892 was nothing in this history, sorry.)213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Swedish was nothing like SOLE language of higher education even after the reformation, since in Academy of Turku, master's theses and bachelor's writings, as well as debate events etc, were conducted in Latin. I recommend the previous writer to check something as easy as the list of titles of master's theses during that period. My great-great-etc-greatgranduncle Simon Fretin's Master's thesis was titled in Latin. And so was H.G.Porthan's and of others, too. Please check.

This is undisputable. The question remains: what is appropriate to put into the introduction of this article. What would you say about the wording "Swedish, not Finnish, was the language of..."? On the other hand, I think the wording with "sole" has a merit as it highlights the reason, need and mandate for the fennomans (and the language strife). /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If Swedish was not the only, then an attribute "chief" or "main" should be used instead. Sole means actually the only, if you understand.213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are clear indications that Swedish actually had a rather minor role in the Academy of Turku.

Yes, but still we would lead the reader astray if we gave the impression that Latin had an importance comparable with in for instance Poland. You remember that it was first in 1828 that a Finnish lectorate was introduced? /Tuomas 23:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No one has mentioned Polish universities in the article. Please do not direct the discussion into irrelevancy. In my opinion, it is not truthful to present Swedish even as "main language of higher education 1600-1860", since it was not. Rather, it should put forward that Finnish language was not present at all in higher education up to 1800´s...213.243.157.114 08:23, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Somehow I could agree to a narrow formulation: from 1600's up until 1863 it was the sole language of jurisdiction and administration in Finland.

213.243.157.114 18:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)



[edit] Universal suffrage

No, I believe that New Zealand adheres to the principles of universal suffrage. (There's an overview of how suffrage evolved in New Zealand at the New Zealand elections article). My objection was to the date of 1993. The user who set it at 1993 did so because he/she believed that Maori and non-Maori votes were not equal before this point. While I understand the thought behind this, I do not believe that the inequality was significant (especially in later years). I am not quite sure what the date should be, however, since there are different definitions of universal suffrage, and New Zealand's case can be quite complicated. That is why I removed New Zealand from the list instead of just moving it. Personally, I would suggest 1893 as the best date - by this time, there were no restrictions on voting by women, Maori, or people without land. Others might disagree, however. -- Vardion 15:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can see how it's done with blacks in the US. Maybe a similar solution could fit here? (Not that I believe that solution to be optimal, either, but pragmatic and in line with how it's handled for some other countries too.) /Tuomas 16:01, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Something like that might work, yes. I've added New Zealand at 1893 with the note "(although certain inequalities with Maori votes persisted)", which I believe addresses the concerns of the user who set New Zealand at 1993. Thanks for the suggestion - I hope the outcome is satisfactory. -- Vardion 03:11, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 :-)
/Tuomas 16:09, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pinochet

Why do you keep adding your LEFTIST comments to the article about Pinochet? In your last edit you state you are NPOVing, but in reality you are shifting the view totally against Pinochet. You even added INCORRECT unemployment information that you got from nowhere. I will keep correcting you for as long as necessary. --AAAAA 16:50, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Be careful with both how you express controversial opinions, and what you express. The idea with npov is not to suppress neither rightist opinions, nor leftist, but to attribute different views to their ideological origin; which is a practice in which I see a posibility for you to improve. Regarding you noticing me adding incorrect information, I would kindly ask you to be more specific. Regards! /Tuomas 16:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please take a look at this edit: [3]. Kevin Baas | talk 14:15, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

It's sometimes hard to avoid the suspicion that some contributors have been fired, or never hired, by governmental agencies for information warfare. ;->
/Tuomas 15:14, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
If I reverted this again, I would be in violation of the three-revert rule. [4] Kevin Baas | talk 18:01, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Having spent a few teenage years in Latin America (although not in Chile), I feel at least some confidence with regard to matters of Latin America. The same can not be said with regard to domestic policies of USA. I also expect Wikipedia to be full of qualified contributors, who know sufficiently much about both English language and the policies in question, to be my superiors. I am not interested in specifically targeting VV's edits. In my eyes, VV seem to be somewhat overheated, and it would only do him good if he cooled of a bit, took a few steps back, and considered what's important for Wikipedia - and for him to do here. As far as I can judge, such cooling down is probably not promoted by too frequent reverts, nor of giving him a feeling of being hunted. Finally, in principle I think a slow pace in editing is healthy for Wikipedia. /Tuomas 06:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Anti-American sentiment

I strive for staying away from articles where VeryVerily is engaged. My experience is that he fights for his delusions with more jealousy than wit. This last attempt seemed initially a bit more successful, and I carried a hope that both of us should somehow have matured. Well... maybe not. I retract to my personal defence of disengagement.

But I did notice, not without a certain relief, that you and others found at least some of my proposed wordings worth to put back again.

(See also: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship)

regards!
--Ruhrjung 19:34, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

Although I've studied German, I'm not feeling very confident with regard to that language. I "can" read German news papers, but I do it rather not. My support for the version (with regard to the former German Minister of Justice, whose name I tend to forget the spelling of all the time) that I then understood as the result of cooperation between you and VV — that was maybe a misconception — was based on my memory of what could be read in British, Finnish and Scandinavian news papers during that controversy. Personally, I think the article on anti-American sentiments would gain from moving the text on the controversy to the article on the woman in question, and only mention her as briefly as possible. German aquantancies, i.e. exchange-students from Germany, give me the impression that in retrospect the controversy on her is the least important aspect of what happened that autumn. I've also got the impression, that she'd already made enemies in Washington, due to her work to promote the International Criminal Court and against deliverance of evidence for the investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui, and that her remark was merily an excuse to execute someone already on the black list. Do you have any thoughts on this? /Tuomas 07:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
No, not really. I don't know what people reacted the most against, but I guess it's rather the totality. Germans, and particular people I know - i.e. in Berlin - reacted like when an old friendship unexpectedly is broken. Only people with a genuine dislike for democracy, parliamentarism and national souvereignty could be happy with the US government's call for Schröder's resignation after his election-victory, or the call for Däubler-Gmelin's resignation before the election. Schröder would probably have removed her anyway, but a foreign state that interfers in such a way reminds of how the Soviet Union treated East Germany - or how A.H. behaved in international diplomacy. Neither memory is particularly pleasant.
On ICC, etc, I don't know more than could be read in news-papers (or rather: what I remember thereof). I must also confess that I do no longer read plenty of news. I did once, when my working schedule included extended stand-by time /pauses /waiting-time, but since I started to work in Copenhagen a few years ago, this is no longer so. I am aware of having bragged with following news in plenty of languages, but I've started to realize that that's history of the 1990s, and comes rarely for any longer. :-(
— I've also made a minor adjustment to the narrative on Gerhard Schröder (I voted for Merkel, btw.)
Ruhrjung 17:07, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
I just restored your latest version, including the removal of the category:persecution. It seems, however, to me as the part on Germany under the heading American arrogance might fit equally well under some other headings. I'm not sure if this is the preferable location, neither if the length of the text is proportionate to its importance. Maybe a separate page on this crisis in the German-American relations would be a good idea? /Tuomas 06:26, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be a stupid idea to create a separate article about some conflict between the Bush and Schroeder administration as there are conflicts between governments all the time and we could not write about all of them, nor would anyone look for such things in an encyclopedia. And, Ruhrjung, Merkel never ran for chancelor. Get-back-world-respect 12:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know if this topic is still relevant to you, but I have added clarification and detail about said affair to Herta Däubler-Gmelin. It seemed important to me, too, since this thing still gets mentioned frequently in a pov way (one or the other). For examples, on the one hand her 100% denial is not very credible, on the other hand it is quite a distortion to say that she made the remark "in a (public) campaign speech". And so on. Regards, High on a tree 20:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Romania 1940

I see you have interest in Romanian history study. Please read these documents related with Ribbentrop-Molotov pact effects on Romania.

Otherwise, your edits regarding Romania in that article could be considered simple speculations. --Vasile 14:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My interests are chiefly the correctness and balance of the article. Your repeated claims on attacks from Finland on June 22 belongs in that category. I'm glad to see your language to have improved.[5] I wonder, however, if not most of the paragraph on the events of the ultimatum could better be covered in the very article on the ultimatum. As it now stands, we give the impressions that the Romanian consequences were the main part, and that the consequences for Poland, Finland and Balticum were only foreplay. /Tuomas 14:37, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Re: conscription

Any advantage to the less populous nation tends to be temporary, and if the more populous nation is the aggressor, it is not likely to have moral qualms about conscription. While, I share the opinion I posted to the Just War article, note that it is correctly reported as the opinion of Einstein and Gandhi. Conscription though has been most famously used by the more populous nations, France in the time of the Grand Armee, Germany in WWI and WWII, the Russia in the same wars. Conscription was opposed in Britain, the US, and Canada in WWI, and in the US in its Civil War and in WWII. It was even opposed in the Old Testament, when Isreal opposed being conscripted by Judea to build the Temple in Jerusalem. I can document all the above. You speak as if a nation has a right to exist, only individuals do and no individual has the right to oppress another, whether in the voting booth or from the throne of a dictatorship or an ideology.

When a nation views its civilians as military assets by subjecting them to conscription, it has not only legitimized them as military targets for the enemy, but that nation has itself become more of a threat and a legitimate target of that conscripted individual than the invading enemy.

Thank you, for spending time to write me an answer! Of course you can document it. I had no reason to doubt that from the very beginning. You speak as if the members of a nation doesn't belong to it, or at least doesn't feel identity with their nation. Well... then it's no problem. Then they are no nation - to me. If a nation has no right to exist, then that's to me is the same as me having no right to my mother tongue or to the culture I'm socialized into (including, but far from limited to, religion), or the home and neighbourhood of my family and my ancestors.

As I read you, you invite to genocide, which revolts me - but don't misinterpret me. I'm just curious. Neither angry, nor offended, just curious. Seen from my perspective, every man (and woman) has the right to defend his home, his family and his relatives, ...and his nation. The man who doesn't, he brings shame upon himself and disaster upon his family. Disaster during invasions is a far too recurrent experience in our history. The invading enemy is per default more of a threat than the nation one belongs to, if not, conscription wouldn't be effective since people would run off in the woods and to the aggressor and God knows whereto. ;-) To me, the problem is unjust wars and wars of aggression, that make defence necessary. Conscription is nothing but the means to organize the mobilization for defence.

With regard to the advantages of larger and smaller peoples, I'm happy to draw another experience from history than you do. The defender is motivated to do his outmost, the troops of the aggressor are usually not. The defender can make occupation expensive for the occupant, the aggressor can only make it harsh, which (unfortunately for him) only serves to strengthen the resistance; or he can limit his objectives in a way that can get acceptance from the occupied population; or he can commit genocide. History gives many example of genocide. That's undeniable. But also many examples of how smaller nations have found a modus vivendi with larger nations — often after having been forced to defense to the cost of much blood. The examples of UK, US and Canada are not relevant to me. Those countries have never been invaded (since 1066, to stretch the truth a bit). The French and German occupations were not particularly successful - they didn't last long.

Thank you, once again, for your kindness to take you time to explain your position! /Tuomas 17:28, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Apologies if I forgot to put my signature above, I thought I had. It is quite different to state that "every man (and woman) has a right to defend his home...", and quite another to state he has the right to force others to do so. In this age of appreciation of diversity, there is a tendency to assume that all cultures are precious and have a right to exist. I too have considered this position, perhaps the virulent wahabi-ism culture should be preserved on a reservation rather being totally destroyed. But then how could we in good conscience allow women and children to be subjected to it? Perhaps, they could be allowed to enter the reservation once they have reached adulthood, however, even then, I doubt their consent could be truly informed until they had experienced it.
Do cultures have a right to oppress women, or be intolerant of religious diversity or to conscript, or to be militaristic? I think it is as wrong to conscript as it is to use weapons of mass destruction, in fact, conscription has been more destructive than all WMD in history combined. I think it is terrorism, as described on the conscription based on the definition there. I also think that even volunteers for military service have a right to rescind their consent, because I don't think truly informed consent for the abuses of boot camp can be given before it is experienced. Similarly, in combat, the injustice of serving under someone elses orders cannot be truly consented to until it is experienced.
Morally, I see a distinction between resisting evil and committing it. How much evil such as weapons of mass destruction or conscription, or attacks upon innocent civilians can be committed before one has become as evil as what one is fighting? Perhaps a moral person would not be willing to survive on those terms.
Consider World War I, almost every country would have been better off surrending to any of the others than participating in the carnage. I believe even Germany would have become liberal if it had the responsibility of administering a united Europe and a colonial empire. I doubt they would have imposed their language and cusines on the rest of the world. Of course the idealogical WWII Nazi Germany is quite a different animal, however, I can take no pride in the behavior of a nation that conscripted, fire bombed, atom bombed and aided Stalin. Thanx for engaging in a civil discussion, I don't not take substantive points personally and hope you don't as well. -- best wishes --Silverback 08:46, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Sweden Finns

Tack! / Thanks for changing the article "Sweden Finns". I realize that I was really tired when I made that addition this night, and even confused the words after having changed one of the sentences just before saving. Besides, I shouldn't trust my English knowledge that much anymore... // 213.101.116.154 (then), today 213.101.119.55 15:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to have been of any use! :-) /Tuomas 19:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] History of Finland

You can make the article as you please. In the coming months I will be be filling in the Finland-related pages with information regarding the Winter War, communists in Finland and their attitude towards the USSR (how do you say, Venäjällä ?) and that sort of thing. I want to extricate myself from some other things before I dive more into that now. Ruy Lopez 02:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You may be interested in the article The Finns as fascists in disguise which I've commenced. I guess you have plenty of examples.
...Venäjä, but USSR is Neuvostoliitto. /Tuomas 13:30, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

...Another good deed succeeded. :-P Sometimes I wonder, with how little knowledge and fact-checking are people writing in W? --Whiskey 08:31, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Moi/Hi Tuomas, good to hear from you. I understand what you mean about the language situation in Suomi, thank you. I'm going back there at Christmas. Your country and its people are great. Talk to you later reefyj


[edit] ArbCom FYI

Your user name was mentioned in the arbitration case against Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily, so I'm informing you of the below temporary order against the users named in this arbitration.

1) Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily are banned from editing any article having to do with German or Polish subjects whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops may use their discretion in determining what falls into these areas, and are hereby authorised to enact 24 hour blocks for violations of this.

2) Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, and VeryVerily are banned from reverting any article more than twice in one 24 hour period whilst Arbitration is on-going. Sysops are hereby authorised to enact 24 blocks for violations of this.

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily. --mav 11:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] My adminship request

Thanks for your support. As far as ugly fights are concerned, I've got a lot of experience staying above the fray, especially when I have greater responsibility and privilege. The same fight I might join into as a "civilian", I can moderate (rather than jump into) as an administrator. --jpgordon{gab} 16:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. :-) /Tuomas 18:03, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalist purism

Take a look at Talk:Vistula please.

It's hard to understand the Poles. In my opinion, they seem more aggressive, and in particular more arrogant towards smaller neighbours, than certain pure-finns. --Johan Magnus 11:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are luckily protected from their diatribes by the language barrier, I think. :-)

...Unfortunately, Estonians are not. /Tuomas 23:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Vistula Flumen

How interesting life you have :) It is indeed interesting and I'd be really glad if someone showed me such a map. I have a fairly decent collection of maps (both modern and 19/20th century ones). Among them is a genuine west-German school atlas showing current western Poland as "territories under temporary Polish administration". I've even seen an English version of that map (I don't have to mention that it used German names only, including Warschau, Krakau and Moskau).

However, as I said, I've never seen the German name used on English maps, it indeed seems a tad strange to me. I always thought that the English name of the river is as well-established in ordinary use as the English names of Warsaw, Cracow, Baltic See or Rome.

By the way, pues sabes hablar castellano, ¿no? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Si, seguro, pero, no lo se escribir mui bien. You know, in puberty, yet another language is not always understood as the gift it is, but I'm confident that if I ever have a reason to take up serious studies, I'll easily reach the level where I read also novels and classic litterature. Spelling might be slightly more difficult, but I think it would require only a limited (though determined) effort - the main key must be to get a grip of the charcteristics for different style levels, so I don't write like an uneducated street kid. As for now, I "can" write when I really have to, but I always feel like the sloppy boy everyone laugh at.

With regard to the map we had back then, I can only affirm that I really don't remember. I won't put the Vistula article on my watchlist, but I can say that I feel you do far too much fuss about it. There is a redirect from Weichsel, isn't there? You wish that Google-searches for Weichsel shall be distined for this article, don't you. Well... then of course you should have the spelling Weichsel included right there in the top of the page, like it is in the rest of en.wikipedia.org. The same is of course relevant for Danzig and Stettin.

You write:

Other thing is that no readers would be mistaken since currently no articles lead to the article on Vistula through the Weichsel redirect.

Which makes me wonder if you've forgotten that a lot of wikipedians dislike the notion of redirects, why they hide it with pipes: [[Vistula|Weichsel]].

I've no specific interest for Poland or Polish issues, but if you start a trend with separate small articles for different kind of alternative spellings, then I must say this will be a detoriation; particularly if it spreads for instance to articles connected to Finland. That would enhance a kind of ethnicism and nationalism that I hope is in the process of becoming obsoleted (EU). ...and that would make me sad!

And finally, with regard to "interesting life" I'm not sure I agree. Most kids I know from the international brat pack are emotionally injured (in lack of a better word). That confidence you get from a stable upbringing, with a social network that evolves only slowly, with grand parents and uncles and cousins in reach, and with your parents having their own friends around, that they have trusted for all of their life — yeah, yeah, I know this is exaggerated, and that I sound pityful and, ...and, ...I don't know what. But in any case: Yes, it can be called an "interesting" life, but if I one day put my own family in that situation, I will feel guilty about it. One must be very much in love with one's own career (or fatherland). Howver, someone necessarily must do it! /Tuomas 09:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, I'm too much of a legalist and putting German names on every single page related to Poland is quite a pain for me. I remember a quarrel I had with certain Nico some time ago who argued that the city of Warsaw was known in English as Warschau and that name should be included in the header. If he adopted your logic, that is argued that there is a redirect from Warschau to Warsaw and people who look for Warschau through Google should be informed that the city is known alternatively as Warschau, it wouldn't change much. At least it wouldn't make me change my mind that the city was always referred to in English as Warsaw and the scarce cases where it was referred to with its German name are mostly due to poor translation and not a general notion.
Anyway, I withdraw my objections from Talk:Vistula, if someone thinks that the alternative names should be included and finds some proof for the usage of German name in English - I will not oppose.
As to your life - don't worry, everyone dreams of some other life. Since me and my family did not make it across the border in 1981 and the Martial Law was imposed (my parents planned to go to Sweden, BTW) we did not leave Poland. However, my dad adopted a different policy: ever since I was 10 he was constantly on some business trips. When I was 15 I counted that I saw him for some 15 minutes a day for an average. Two weeks in Sweden, 1 day at home, 1 week in Finland, two days at home and so on. From your point of view that is an example of "stable upbringing", but it's not necessarily so.. Anyway, let's wait until we're 50, at 50 everyone has a life he deserves :). Cheers -- [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 13:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stress, maps etc.

Thanks! Doing maps is something I've started enjoying more and more. I know my maps are at least a thousand times better than my crappy spelling. ;)

I must say I really appreciate the work you and Johan Magnus have done on Finnic, or more precisely, Talk:Finnic. :) I can honestly say that I do not understand what the problem is... but it sure has generated a lot of discussion instead of making the article any better!

If you are interested in doing biographical articles, you might want to take a look at Suuret Suomalaiset. I just recently added the complete list and there are a lot of red links. -- Jniemenmaa 14:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] how to deal with new POV-fanatics

Maybe you'd be interested in User:Tuomas#View of Wikipedia. I think of our recent common experiences with regard to ....well, I think you know!

At the moment, I feel slight symptoms of meta:wikistress, but before I retreat to less stressful articles, maybe I could ask you for the good deed to look at Talk:Finnic and see if you can shape an opinion of your own. As a linguist, who (as far as I understand) are unconnected to the ethnic disconcord that surely lies beneath the lack of understanding between different wikipedians there, your input would be very much appreciated regardless if your stance is more or less in opposition to mine! ...and regardless of if you put your opinion on that talk page, or if you are a careful man who put it here, on your own talk page. :-)))

Best regards! /Tuomas 10:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Regarding our recent common experiences, I've stepped back because I felt it was getting on my nerves. I also didn't like the fact that it did cost me several hours of trying to talk, to be cooperative and civil, even to help the guy — apparently all to no avail (though I see that in the end, the article seems to benefit from the whole affair). Having stepped back, however, and having read your views of Wikipedia, and having thought about it some time now, I realize that I could have been more patient. In particular, I shouldn't have reverted so quickly; that sort of encouraged the POV-pusher to 'be bold'. Anyhow, it has been instructive.
As for the Talk:Finnic thing, I'm not sure if I understand the issue. I am really not at home in the history of the Scandinavian countries, and I surely can't say a word about subleties like Finnic/Finnish/Finlandic and all that. As I take it, the issue is that Finnic for some people refers to all people that speak (languages closely related to) the Finnic language, while according to others, it refers to the Finnic/sh people, not including the (genetically more distant) Sami peoples and the like. This seems to me to be a matter of terminology. As Maureen suggests, the solution could thus be to mention both views.
In one of your replies on that page you state that `The enigma remains how come the Saami came to retain a mitochondrial gene pool distinct from that of other European populations, but share a language and some mythology with some of these populations.' As a linguist, and fully ignorant of the history of that area (I want to stress that), I can't help to think about contact phenomena like language shift, which sometimes can blur the seemingly straightforward language-etnicity relation considerably. As for a shared mythology, I'm not at all surprised by that; mythology is often of a very regional nature, transcending ethnic borders easily (which is an extremely interesting phenomenon in itself). An example would be the West-African character of 'Anansi the spider', which is widespread in the oral literature of widely diverging peoples and languages.
That's what I have to say for now. You may copy this reaction (if it is worth anything) to the relevant talk page; I won't place it there myself since I am not even sure if I have scratched the surface of the issue. Kind regards! — mark ✎ 01:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] example of unagreeable typography

See Talk:Å#bad image.

Tired of reverting one particular persistent user, I am eager for a second opinion. --Johan Magnus 16:31, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Givetvis! /Tuomas 18:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello Tuomas and Johan! I'm not the most knowledgeable of linguists but I still think I can contribute sometimes. Please correct me gently as you've been doing when I'm wrong and we will make a great team! Steverapaport 19:38, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vyborg

If you have nice pictures and your family lovely recalls from Vyborg, never go there. It is totally destroyed. It was the worst city I have ever seen. Those pictures look much better than reality does. For example, the buildings on the bank, which you can see on the photo taken from the castle tower, are heavily damaged, without windows and uninhabited. Miraceti 20:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've no personal attachments to the city. It's a border region, of chiefly strategic interest for Russia - tourists aren't expected - so why shouldn't it remain looted?
— Now, to be honest, I think the European Union and Russia for their own mutual safety ought to increase contacts and cooperation drastically. And in that context Vyborg and Narva, and maybe Kaliningrad, could be key points of contact. But who listens to me? ;-> /Tuomas 02:50, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, tourists are expected in Vyborg. It is not a military zone anymore. At least, I haven't noticed a presence of army. That would be a huge advantage for the city, similarly like for Tallinn. But the city has really nothing to offer. Even the castle looks horribly. It is so sad.
BTW, Narva is already in EU, it is Estonian city.
I don't belive in a success of wider contacts between EU and Russia.
Sorry, I felt your family was originally from Vyborg region.
Miraceti 18:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There is a huge difference between my grandparents' attachment to Vyborg as the "capital"/metropol of their Karelia and my own indifference. ;->
With regard to the political leaders in Russia and the EU I am sorry to agree with you.
/Tuomas 23:08, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom "elections"

Hello Tuomas,

I want to let you know about a message I've just put on the ArbCom elections endorsements page. I'm letting you know because I've seen from your comments on the vote for Neutrality as admin page, that you may be concerned about the fairness of these "elections". So am I. "Neutrality" has had a grudge against me since I voted against him in his admin elections and has made it %^&$ hell for me to try and continue to use the Wikipedia since then.

He keeps blocking me. I have disabled hands and it's very hard to try and stand up against this abuse by this bully. Please help me stop this stich-up of the election by publicising what's going on and demanding proper fair dealing from Danny and the other organisers. Thanks. - WikiUser.

(P.S. They should stop keeping the "elections" as quiet as they can, i.e. put a notice on the Main Page. They should stop trying to prevent people from taking part, all they want they say is for the candidates to praise themselves, their friends to praise them- and anyone else to shut up and no criticising. Some elections! It's a stich up for the same old group of users.)WikiUser 20:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] Rienzo

Since you have been involved with Rienzo before, you probably ought to see

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Rienzo and his sockpuppets

CheeseDreams 01:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Finland" in the 18th century

It seems to me, as if Wikipedia has been the victim of one or several POV-pushers, basically writing history on scientists as if Finland had been established as an independent country 200 years earlier than in our timeline.

I don't know if I should try to sort things out, or if I should ask people with a more immediate knowledge (i.e. you :-). My primary solution would probably be something like reverting anonymous edits in a maybe too insensitive way, but I can't deny to get a somewhat annoyed by Austrians arguing that Austria wasn't a part of Germany, Poles arguing that 19th century Danzig has to be spelled Gdansk, or that 18th century Åbo and 19th century Helsingfors is to be spelled Turku and Helsinki. ...I mean, the names are perfectly correct, but it rings far too much of history revisionism in my ears when people say that Hoffmann and Kant were born in Kaliningrad. And then the same ought to be the case for the University in Turku of the 17th and 18th centuries, wouldn't it?

Regards!

--Ruhrjung 23:58, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

You are right, of course, but I doubt it's worth to waste energy on this kind of fanatics. They have sisu, you know! (In this case meaning that they are dense but stubborn.) /Tuomas 05:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] more on normanism

Thank you for your kind comments on my choice of handle :).

As regards normannic-theory fanatics, thanks for the warning, but I'm not so attached to all the racial-supremacy and who-screwed-whom-in-the-past mumbo-jumbo that I wish to get involved in it. Sisu has little to do with it.  :)))

Cheers A. Shetsen 20:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Finnish Civil War

Hello. Thank you for undoing the damage I've done on "Finnish Civil War". I got confused who was who and who did what.... Is the 1918 entry on January 28 wrong as well ? And Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/January 28 ? I am changing "Red guards" to "Social democrats and communists" for now. Please revise if they are still wrong. Thanks. -- PFHLai 13:37, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

I've changed it to "[[Rebellion|Rebels]]". Less specific, but less likely to be wrong.... -- PFHLai 20:16, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

[edit] Meritocracy

Thanks for unbolding my overbolding of article terms. I don't know what I was smoking to do what I did. :) — Stevie is the man! Talk | Contrib 01:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! ;-) /Tuomas 02:17, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Since you have edited on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Names issues, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 07:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:14, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] High School and secondary education

If you want "high school" merged into "secondary education", does this mean that "gymnasium" (a form of secondary education in European countries) should be merged too? WhisperToMe 02:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe not?
I noted that to my eye, the two articles High school and Secondary education kept similar information.
Do you think the current state is optimal? /Tuomas 09:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HRE

In terms of the Holy Roman Empire and the EU, I think it would be best not to have that material in a section which is meant to simply describe what the Holy Roman Empire was. Because in terms of structures and so forth, there is little similarity. However, if this is something that people talk about, it could perhaps go in a section discussing "legacy" or "evaluation" or something like that. john k 17:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hinting at — more than talking about. It's a rather typical trait in certain circles to express oneself in a way that camoflages one's own insufficient knowledge on matters of ("German") history by means of reminding the listener/reader of his/her own lacking knowledge on these matters. That way, "a point can be made" without any embarrasing consequences.
 :-)
A legacy section, or something in that direction, sounds like the right place. /Tuomas 20:13, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Standard Swedish

I have started a mediation process there, so if I could please direct your attention to that, I would apprechiate it. Thank you. Inter\Echo 11:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation and Leinonen

Hey, Tuomas.

Thanks for accepting Inter's mediation. If we focus on the facts of the matter from now on, I'm sure we can reach a reasonable consensus and I look forward working with you once we've gotten past our previous differences of opinion.

I hadn't noticed the link to Leinonen's thesis, and I'm glad you pointed it out to me. I've read parts of it and it is quit a useful source in the is matter. Some of the material is actually relevant to more than just the "sj"/"tj"-matter. If you check pages 20-22, there's a very interesting summary of the scholarly discussion on the differences between regional variations of Standard Swedish.

I also recommend that you do a search for the following words to get a good overall notion of their usage and meaning in linguistic contexts.

  • "dialekt"
  • "riksvenska"
  • "högsvenska"
  • "standardspråk"

You were right about the differences between "sj" and "tj"-sounds to some extent. It's just that the fact that they're exclusive to Finland-Swedish seems to have gotten lost in the heat of battle. Peter Isotalo 13:02, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hi!
The problem with Swedes misinterpreting sje- and tje-sounds is not exclusive to Finland-Swedish, which is pointed out by Ruhrjung (I think more than once on different talk-pages and possibly also elsewhere). You do one yourself when you don't distinguish between the rs-assimilation and some realizations of the /sje/-sound. And one hears snide remarks about posh ladies, asylants, and others saying kinka for skinka, tjära for skjära, or tjärnorna for stjärnorna every now and then. And don't forget the difficulties many Swedes have to decide whether a certain word has a tje- or a sje-sound. (I may be more sensitive and observant due to my going to grundskola in Finland, but it can be heard and read.)
I did read Leinonen. The important lesson of the pages 20-22 is maybe that it's not so easy to speak of single established views among scholars. In my opinion, Reuter's views must (due to his position) be given particular weight, but that is not the same as me always supporting his views.
I don't believe my understanding of the terms dialekt, riksvenska, högsvenska, or standardspråk to be insufficient, nor my understanding of the usage of the terms accent, dialect, and standard language in English, although I have no in-debt knowledge of developments back and forth on the field of linguistics. In particular I maybe ought to point out that I am not limited to the understanding of dialect that is typical for many Finnish teachers and language developers, but this ought to have been clear already from my statement at Talk:Standard Swedish#Mediation.
I would wish you used "genuine dialect(s)" in the positions where you hierto have used dialect, but I would rather like your proposals if you tried with "have been less influented by written Standard Swedish" than with wordings that connect closely to how Engstrand writes on page 120: Med dialekt menar svenska dialektologer de bygdemål eller landsmål som går tillbaka på en obruten utveckling från fornnordiska. They may well say so, but that's only their opinion, and not necessarily congruent with other scholarly opinions. It can of course be argued that also Standard Swedish has been in obruten utveckling från fornnordiskan.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to warn against assuming my attitudes or opinions to be typical for Finland. I am in fact born in Sweden, have visited pre-school in Stockholm and lived, so far, only seven years in Finland.
It's of course nice to welcome you to this user talk page. It will however be a moment of much greater joy when you indicate that you realize that some of your edits may be considered arrogant and rather typical of imperialistically minded Great-Swedes, as for instance [6], [7], [8], or your insistence that rikssvenska and standardsvenska are to be understood as synonyms.
Looking forward to this, I sign
/Tuomas 17:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You mention Engstrand not being in agreement with other scholars about the definitions of dialects vs. regional varieties. Could you refer to a text where this disagreement is confirmed? Peter Isotalo 08:37, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
I am not quite sure you have understood me correctly. Where have I said what? /Tuomas 07:15, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Here's the quote
I would wish you used "genuine dialect(s)" in the positions where you hierto have used dialect, but I would rather like your proposals if you tried with "have been less influented by written Standard Swedish" than with wordings that connect closely to how Engstrand writes on page 120: "Med dialekt menar svenska dialektologer de bygdemål eller landsmål som går tillbaka på en obruten utveckling från fornnordiska." They may well say so, but that's only their opinion, and not necessarily congruent with other scholarly opinions. It can of course be argued that also Standard Swedish has been in obruten utveckling från fornnordiskan.
You're saying Engstrand is describing just one of many different linguistic intepretations. What are the others and in which sources can I find these differing interpretations of what constitutes a Swedish dialect? Peter Isotalo 11:33, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
Please note that the Engstrand-quote is delimited by quotation marks. You can find other opinions virtually everywhere. Easiest would be to direct you to dialect. /Tuomas 16:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually read Wikipedia:Cite your sources?

Next question, please! /Tuomas 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know you're a university student, so you must have some grasp of how sources work. You can't dismiss proper sources written by scholars just because you don't agree with it on a personal basis. Explain what sources you're refering to. Peter Isotalo 08:44, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I do have some grasp of that, yes. But I detest your ways with people, as for instance here above. It's only to your own disadvantage when you appear as an examinator suffering from abstinence. Should you maybe make a new start and repeat your question as if for the first time? /Tuomas 23:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Germanic Peoples.

Yep, you're right. I've changed it to Brythonic for the moment, but I'm still not happy. If you think there's a better place to link to (including back to British) please change it again. Also it doesn't need two links, so I removed one. Rich Farmbrough 16:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fine! Brythonic is a nice improvement. I'm sure someone else knows more than me about these issues! :-) /Tuomas 17:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images and media for deletion

  • I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 03:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] depressing

I've now spent hours, that mainly were consumed by Karmosin. He even removed a reference to a classic German dispute on the Ach-laut from an article on phonetics! This is depressing, and beside that, I do not at all have time or insentives for this amount of janitoring. I would like to stress, however, that chiefly I agree with you on more or less all points that for the moment are in Karmosin's focus. My absence should not be wrongly interpreted. ...But I do of course hope, that you would try to be a little bit less aggressive.

Cheers!
Ruhrjung 17:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Since there was no reference, I had no idea it was a longstanding dispute and assumed it was a mistake. And I did mention it on the talk page. Peter Isotalo 09:02, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Assuming is the key word here as in so many other cases — unfortunately. Some people seem to believe that the purpose of Wikipedia is to give them an opportunity to test their own misconceptions. You almost makes it sound as if I were an angry young man, Ruhrjung.
 :-) /Tuomas 08:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've once again spent much more time than intended on reverting Peter Isotalo. This is really not what I feel like doing with the timeslots I can dispose at the Internet. This time, the first thing I discovered was a removal of a reference put in by Johan Magnus. I just don't understand how that man thinks. He is some kind of POV-pusher, isn't he? But for what? And he must suffer from some Wik-like syndrome, although with the difference that Wik at least knew his field...

Could you please, if you have time to spare, see if there is anything with Peter's edits to Scanian language that ought to be returned (reworded or not)?

Thanks in advance!
--Ruhrjung 18:05, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation

Would you care to register an opinon on the Masturbation Talk page as to whether a full color photograph of male masturbation is suitable for that page? Thank you. Force10 23:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Your behavior and edits concerning articles relating to Swedish has resulted in a joint Request for Comments for users Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung and Tuomas. You're encouraged to respond at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas. Peter Isotalo 20:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It has now been a week since I filed the RfC. I don't know if you've actually checked your talkpage, but I would appreciate if you could make a response.
Peter Isotalo 00:12, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I consider you a problem for Wikipedia that is beyond my ability to handle, why I silently withdraw from pages you are engaging in. Your way of treating JM on the actual talk page there was more than necessary to convince me that you are impossible to reach by means of reasonable exchange of thoughts.
/Tuomas 09:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
For some reason no one seems to share your opinion (except abusive Swedish admins like E70 and a silly RfC vandal). Did you even notice that I worked my ass off to bring Swedish language to FA status? Since you're so convinced not only of my incompetence as an editor but also of my fiercly anti-Finnish sentiment (which you, of course, never specify) you should consider nominating the article for removal from FA status.
C'mon. Do the right thing, Tuomas! Fight the Great-Swedish POV!
Peter Isotalo 12:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern/Western Finnish dialects

Hi Tuomas! I am not sure you ever come here any more. Anyway, I have a comment on something you wrote regarding meänkieli being an Eastern Finnish dialect. Someone showed me a map of Finnish dialects, claiming it is a Western Finnish dialects. You can have a look at Talk:East Finnish. / Habj 23:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chilean coup of 1973

I'd be interested in your opinion at Talk:Chilean coup of 1973#Differentiating the deposement from the coup. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Otto Ville Kuusinen

It would be awfully nice of you to provide the source(s) of that article you created back then... ;) --Illythr 12:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replaceable fair use Image:Population_concentrations_in_Finland.gif

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Population_concentrations_in_Finland.gif. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius letter

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Vilnius letter, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Truthanado (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)