I'm a Finnish guy, with a D.Sc. Tech. in chemical technology.
Archive 2005
Karelian dialect
In your recent changes to the Karelian language article, you've replicated a lot of the points one of my elderly relatives used to make in her frequent jokes about the (slow) Savolax people. She had spent her childhood somewhere at the western Ladoga shore, in some smallish village whose name I've forgotten. The article states that it is not about what Finns consider as a Karelian dialect, but with your recent changes I curiously wonder if this still holds true. --Johan Magnus 16:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Karelian language is a dialect continuum, and it's influenced by the Finland Finnish dialects including the Savo dialect.
Concerning your recent edit to the English Language page, I'm not sure if that's right. Listening to myself, I definitely labialize /ʃ/ to [ʃʷ] before rounded vowels, but before unrounded vowels, it's just [ʃ]. I don't know about speakers of other dialects of English of course, but I suspect that, say, [ʃʷi:n] for "sheen" would sound very odd to them. Just my two cents. On the other hand, apparently I *do* labialize them, just more so before rounded vowels. I'll be damned. Take care. --Whimemsz 23:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Estonian
Hi Vuo,
Thanks for your clarifications of length in Estonian. I knew something was off with the old wording, but am not familiar with Fennic languages myself. kwami 18:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
The discussion was about Sauli Niinistö. It was not about the Wikipedia article about Sauli Niinistö. I was under the impression that Wikipedia allowed talk about the subjects of the articles, not only about the articles themselves. At least, I have seen plenty of precedent for that. JIP | Talk22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to inquire if your comment regarding the autonomy of Åland is the result of ignorance or contempt for the Åland Islands. It amazes me that a Finn, who by all standards should have at least basic knowledge about the autonomy of Åland, expresses such misinformed views. --Nappilainen14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term "autonomy" usually means that everything but foreign policy and the protection of the military is handled by the local government, and that the nation is a federation. None of these apply; the entire territory of Finland is governed by the Finnish law, as set in the national parliament. --Vuo15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please state the source for that definition. I don't see why autonomy should imply that the nation is a federation. And I would like to point this out: Åland is _not_ governed solely by Finnish law, many of the laws that govern Åland are set by Lagtinget. You may want to read Självstyrelselagen before you spread any further erroneous statements, the link is on the Finland-talk page. The autonomy of Åland has been the subject of academic study since it was established and let me stress this: no serious scholar challenges the fact that Åland _is_ an autonomy. --Nappilainen19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate numbering
[2]
– If '1' is so problematic, then, why is it used normally in all the other numbers (10, 11, etc)? If you have some kind of authoritative source for your information, could you mention it in the discussion? --Jonik15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MTBE
your revisions to MTBE make no sense. Have you read the arthur d little study? it is totally superficial as well as erroneous. what is the length of your experince with MTBE? have you ever worked on an MTBE cleanup? i have worked in the field of groundwater contamination from leaking fuel tanks for over 30 years and know this subject. MTBE is a known carcinogen and of a concern at very low concentrations. you have reverted this article so that it is essentially a pawn of the MTBE industry. i will not let the article stand with the bias you have instilled. but i will give you the courtesy of awaiting your response and invite any others knowledgable in this matter to comment. let us be scientific and correct in what we impart here.Anlace21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The content itself is not really the problem. The problem is that you want to create a political pamphlet or something. An encyclopedia is not a place for comments such a As with most carcinogens, it is difficult to determine long term effects of exposure. Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. So, it's not poisonous, but it's poisonous? The only part of that is really needed in the article is: Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. This is the "state of the art", and it needs to be mentioned. Trying to sound scary is not a good practice. Furthermore, I added content that has sources; true, it's just petrol industry, but you have nothing to offer in return. + On the content, reply to Talk:MTBE. --Vuo23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your response...here are the issues
1. the part you quote in italics was not my contribution and i agree its almost meaningless
2. MTBE is a known carcinogen
3. as with many carcinogens it is difficult to have long term data to show effects. how many decades did we wait before acting on smoking as a danger after someone knew it to be carcinogenic??
4. you still havent told me whether you read the a d little article
5. you still havent said how many MTBE cleanups you have worked on.
6. i agree this is no place for a political statement and will heed that in any further revisions. i am not a political person, but rather a scientist.
7. im not trying to sound scary, but MTBE is an enormous problem. in the usa alone the cleanup costs already mandated will be staggering
8. i will give you more references to this matter on my next edit
9. above all i appreciate this discourse, even though we seem to disagree; im not sure how much we will disagree once we share all the relevant facts
sincerely Anlace22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kemira Growhow
Vuo: I do not see your point in changing the fresh 2006 Kemira Growhow data that was there into some old figures from 2004? The fact that Kemira Growhow web site has some outdated information is not good reason to have outdated information here, right?
You say that the cases modify the verb but not the noun. That is surely illogical! They must be modifying the noun. Am I not right in thinking that the location of the word ikkunassa is critical? If the phrase said "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" the problem is solved because ikkunassa is then used as an adjective to housuja because adjectives always precede their nouns. When coming after housuja as in "voinko sovittaa noita housuja ikkunassa" it means that ikkunassa must be being used adverbally, this describing where the fitting is taking place.
As the comment on the discussion page says, even the English construction is bad because it is ambiguous. Although this is an interesting thread it is perhaps not best placed under the heading of locative cases.
I have great respect your knowledge of Finnish and grammar so have not changed your edit, but you may wish to think about whether you want to change it yourself.
Regards
Tom12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Refers to, not modifies. I can say that "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" is ungrammatical, as a native Finnish speaker. It is the intent to provide an example where it would be ambiguous where the locative refers to (sovittaa, or housuja), and demonstrate that it points to the verb (sovittaa ikkunassa), not the noun (housuja ikkunassa). --Vuo23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the illative----
Ok I'm picking on you again!
In the article on illative (Finnish noun cases) you put this as the introduction...
The ending is *-hən, where ə indicates the preceding vowel, and 'h' elides should the result be a simple long vowel. (This elision does not occur in some dialects, such as in Pohjanmaa.) The ending is added to the strong vowel stem. The third of the local cases with the basic meaning "into"
I honestly do not think that most Finns would regard there as being an elided h in most forms of the illative. It seems to me that adding the 'h' is a simple way of overcoming the problem of extending an already long vowel. This is how Finnish is taught to us learning the language by professional teachers, and it seems perfectly logical. The Pohjanmaa dialect I agree is interesting and, although you have not claimed it, it may, for all I know, have some historical significance too. BUT, I'm not sure that the exception makes the rule!
Would you re-consider this? I am trying to encourage the use of WIKIs for learning the language. Although I am aiming to create this away from the Wikipedia, the Wikipedia is a good reference point and we may update it if we think it necessary. It is nice to have them in step with each other, but *-hən and a usually elided 'h' is going to be a hard sell to my Finnish Grammar teacher. Can you re-consider it?
This isn't the only case in Finnish, where consonant elision takes place; the partitive case -ta → -a is the most widespread. However, it is morphologically correct, no matter how funny it sounds, to leave the consonant in place. That is, leipähän is correct, although it sounds old-fashioned. But, kuu → *kuun (pro kuuhun) is NOT correct, and will change meanings. So, err on the side of caution.
Furthermore, long vowel-producing processes are very much alive in spoken Finnish, so it's not unfamiliar to a Finnish speaker to create the long vowel. In fact, there's even dispute on the professor level if non-initial non-simple vowels are long vowels/diphthongs or sequences of vowels. (So, leipään is syllabicated either /lei.pä:n/ or /lei.pä.än/.) And, this question about *-hən/-ən is a theory, and we want the simplest theory that is accurate: if we take *-ən as the "basic" form, this makes all words not ending in a short vowel exceptions to the general rule, adding unnecessary complexity. --Vuo02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I accept that it works and is understood, but I still think it is wrong, because in the standard language, the elision is standard and so we need to state the rules for the elision. The standard teaching is that the form is
1. -Vn (where V is the last vowel on the genetive singular stem).
when the word is more that 2 syllables long.
-Vn is the most common notation that I have seen in various grammar books (e.g. Fred Karlsson's "Finnish. An Essential Grammar", Leila White's "Suomen kielioppia ulkomaalaisille" and Markukka Kenttälä's Kieli käytöön). )
Examples
Talo > Talon > Taloon
Käsi > Käden > Käteen (showing s-t-d gradation changes)
Kankea > Kankean > Kankeaan
2. -seen on the genetive stem
where the genetive stem ends in a long vowel
Examples
huone > Huoneen > Huoneeseen
Lontoo > Lontoon > Lontooseen
3. -hVn
where the word is only 1 syllable long and ends in a vowel
Examples
kuu > Kuun > Kuuhun
tie > tien > tiehen
I think this is still the better explanation as it always gives the right answer in Standard Finnish. Tom13:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a general example of what quality vs. quantity means, so I wrote "/k/ with /g/" as an example of change in quality of voicing, because /k/ vs. /v/ would represent only Finnish. It wasn't meant to be from any specific language. If you want a specific language, /k/ vs /g/ could pass for Karelian. --Ryan19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, /k/ to /g/ doesn't really stress the point enough: the consonant can be replaced, not just simply modified w.r.t. voicing and such. Citing Pohjanmaa Finnish vesi, veren, veteen. --Vuo20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Historical stuff
Still curious on your source for the following:
There are also traces of earlier gradation patterns, predating the current system. For example, the noun case partitive (a very common case, usage about 15% of all instances) and the verb form I infinitive share the ending -ta/-tä. However, more often than not, this is gradated to -a/-ä. For example, the noun jousi has the partitive jousta with the original -ta, but the noun kylä has the partitive kylää, from *kylätä. With verbs, assimilation may occur, e.g. tulla ← *tul+ta. The t-deletion occurs whenever a simple long vowel results in standard Finnish. The Karelian dialect, in particular, sometimes does not delete the intervocalic 't'.
Not that I don't believe it, of course, as it seems to be a plausible explaination. I haven't found it in Hakulinen's book, though I may not have searched deeply enough. --Ryan20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I have to say "somewhere on the net" now, but when I have time, I could find an actual book on this. But, I'm sure that this is an important part of a "standard description" of consonant gradation. --Vuo20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are far better examples of suffixal gradation than something like this that can hardly be said to be an alternation anymore. Similar to the menkää vs. mene? thing you cited in the Finnish article; since the historical reconstruction of the singular imperative would have been something like menek this would have not been an alternation back in the day. The change in my mind is a result of historical lenition, not some lenition process; the amount of final consonants became more restrictive across the language anyway. On the other hand I haven't found mention of that in Hakulinen's book either. --Ryan04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The living fish swims in water
I will accept your edit if I cannot convince you, but I do feel that I should explain that I used the word "tenuous", to which you objected, because I have read reports concluding that the Finnic and Ugric languages are not in fact descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, they would have a tenuous connection rather than a distant divergence. Again, as you seem to do lots of editing in this field, I will defer to your final judgment. --M@rēino01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, there are some crackpot theories about a Turkic-Ugric linguistic connection, but these have political motivations. No serious researcher (that is, no fringe theorists) question the relatedness of Finnic and Ugric. The common vocabulary is the strongest argument. --Vuo14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proto-Uralic
Terve, tein vähän isompia lisäyksiä aloittamaasi artikkeliin Proto-Uralic, ja lisäsin puuttuvan artikkelin Proto-Samoyed. Jos sinulla on kommentteja tai ehdotuksia uusiin versioihin, niin kuulen niistä mielelläni. --AAikio11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very close vote on the WW2 discussion page going on at the moment about the overview of WW2. I would like it if you could vote, as I am very worried that the "narrow" viewpoint will win. Thank you. Wallie00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Vuo... I was at the Finnish language page today, and saw in the first paragraph, "It modifies the forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and verbs depending on their roles in the sentence."
I was thinking of an edit to say something like:
Finnish is an inflected language, in which the forms of words change depending on their roles in a sentence.
I don't speak Finnish, though I dated a Finnish girl in college, and so thought I'd raise the question with you here because of your contributions to the page and your knowledge of the language. The little I know tells me (as a native English speaker) that Finnish definitely is inflected, and maybe deserves some mention on the Inflection page as well.
— OtherDave13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Finnish phonology: diphthongs
Hello! I'm glad that you keep an active eye on the article about Finnish phonology as you seem to have good knowledge about it. However, I have to disagree with you concerning the phonological representation of diphthongs. Please see the new section on the respective talk page. Thanks. --Oghmoir17:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the way your mergefrom notice is obvious in the article! However, I was under the impression that the Right Thing to do was a WP:TIE
I'm wondering whether there's any way to combine the advantages of a WP:TIE listing and a template note, maybe by just including a category tag in a new template and adding a pointer on TIE to that category.
Until then, just a heads-up that doing both a TIE listing and the note might be more effective for now (and, of course, a request for information on what the best practice is .. I read foreign Wikipedias, though there are few languages I understand well, and I'm a bit distraught at how so much valuable information is only available in a secondary language).
A more general solution would be a Template:Contentsource to suggest that extremely crucial information is in another content source, and major editing should not be done without consulting the source first. This case is pretty obvious: articles disagree on the very definition. Another similar situation is with the article Economy of Finland. The English original is a revamp of an old CIA factbook entry, missing vital statistics and having a stilted point of view, with a focus so outdate it's essentially worthless. The Finnish article itself has no problems. --Vuo15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more general, sure, but what would be the point of that? It's not like all editors can read all languages, and an article that needs translation is of interest both to editors reading that article (who might happen to read the other language) and to editors who know the language (and might be interested in the articles subject matter).
I agree the Economy section in the Finland article is really bad. Don't read Finnish, alas :-)
No, you can take a cursory glance at an article without knowing the language. In the article fi:Suomen talous, the structure of the economy is described with lists and percentages. The lack of these in the English article is obvious to anyone, even if they knew neither Finnish or English. I can't speak German or French, but I can easily identify that the content is not found in the English article Activity (chemistry). --Vuo15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
atomic number 118.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revisiting one of physics' most embarrassing cases of scientific misconduct, researchers from Russia and the United States announced Monday that they have created a new super-heavy element, atomic number 118.
Scientists said they smashed together calcium with the manmade element Californium to make an atom with 118 protons in its nucleus. The new element lasted for just one millisecond, but it was the heaviest element ever made and the first manmade inert gas -- the atomic family that includes helium, neon and radon.
Hello. I see that there's already an article for this, called Ununoctium. Perhaps you would like to update that article with this news article? Or perhaps put it in the In The News section of wikipedia? dposse20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you put [[ERM]]. ERM is a disambig page, and generally, linking to them is discouraged, especially when it clearly refers to something on the list. No big deal. But I just thought it's better to get it right the first time so that people working on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links would have less items to do. Cheers! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are different statements. It means that there are very few reasons to use a poison because it's a poison. Many chemicals have a significant toxicity while being useful for some other reason. There are few uses for the toxicity itself. Phosphine, for example, is used to kill pests by poisoning them, therefore you cannot use something that's not poisonous — at least to the pests. (You could also use pyrethrine, which has a low toxicity to humans and high toxicity to insects, but it leaves a residue, which is unacceptable in some applications.) --Vuo21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In Shelling of Mainila you recently added that Yeltsin admitted in 1998 that the incident was fabricated by the Soviets. Do you have a reference for this, by any chance? I'm not able to find any sources that back up that claim. I would appreciate if you could help out. -- IlyaHaykinson06:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was from another wiki (fi), and the reference is to Yeltsin's denunciation of Stalin's policy of attacking Finland in President Ahtisaari's first state visit to Russia. --Vuo13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This site refers to President Yeltsin's and President Ahtisaari's press conference 18 May 1994. Yeltsin is quoted: "Annexation of Karelia [into the Soviet Union] was aggression, Stalin's totalitarian policy, and we with President [Ahtisaari] cannot accept this." The importance of this is that as Yeltsin was a successor to Stalin, he could be assumed to support or even continue similar aggressive policies unless he explicitly denounced them. Presidents of Russia have not advocated changing the border, and neither does the Finnish people. --Vuo10:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on the importance. However, without some sort of a primary source attributing specifically the Shelling of Mainila as a Soviet fabricated incident, we probably can't say that Yeltsin said that in the article. -- IlyaHaykinson01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Captitive verb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong J.M. Salleh08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The image description 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.
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 fair use images 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.
Dear Vuo: As you can see, I reorganized the n-BuLi page a lot. I hope that you are not offended by such a big change, because you have made several valuable edits. Eventually we'll get a real organicker on to this article. If you feel that my changes were too strong, then feel free to revert or re-edit as you think is best - none of us owns this page. Cheers and best wishes for further productive changes. --Smokefoot04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carc.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article should still be considered under-construction. Your advise on the gallery is highly welcome. But, I guess, I will eventually try to have a minimum number of images in the article. Too many images make for a bigger page size, which may be difficult for billions of people out there struggling with a slow internet connection in search of information on the Wikipedia. Besides, images that add only a little value at the expense of cluttering up the article and opening scopes for irrelevant image spamming may be a not-too-desirable situation. I really plan to put back as many images as fit (removal of the gallery is just a beginning of the work), and I am just stating my concerns here. Thankas. It would be very helpful if you could check the article and the images on it tomorrow. Let me know if I am missing something. Aditya(talk • contribs)06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that it is under construction. The perpetual under-construction, I think, also includes the image policy or lack of such. My suggestion is to put all images (except one at the intro) into a gallery, the rest being text only. That should limit attempts by different users to "liven up" the article by adding a lot of images along the text. --Vuo (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to Ä[5] as vandalism [6] since the text I added is correct and common knowledge for many Swedes. Could you please explain your actions? –panda (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was added under "Letter Ä", not Germanic umlaut-A. For the letter Ä, there is no substitution (if forced, "A"). ... And btw, there was this April's Fool connected to this: [7] --Vuo (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was added to the correct location as it has to do with the Swedish ä, not the German ä. The April Fool's joke is about completely removing å, ä, ö from Swedish, not about how it is written when it's not available on a keyboard. Å is written as "aa", ä as "ae", and ö as "oe" when the it's not possible to write "å", "ä", and "ö". I have a letter from the Consulate of Sweden in New York City that was written this way, so it is considered an acceptable way to write Swedish. I personally don't know what the Finns do so the statement made it clear that it was only about Swedish. –panda (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some back-and-forth editing you might be interested in at the Operation Barbarossa page. I deleted a paragraph you first wrote back in January 2007. Do you have the reference for the paragraph about large numbers of Soviet maps showing Germany and Russian=>German phrasebooks for asking where the German SA is? And a reference for the fact that Soviet maps were scarce in the Soviet Army but German maps were plentiful? You might be able to return the paragraph's clarity. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of it I read from the one-source review in Finnish in here, but there is a very short English review in here. After inspecting the reference list of the Finnish article (mostly Suvorov), I personally take it with a grain of salt, althought the basic idea is right: the Communists did want to attack and invade, not just sit tight and wait for Hitler to attack them. There is actually a WP article here: Icebreaker (Suvorov). --Vuo (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are a Finn?? I see! Must be a KGB insurgent in Finland no doubt. BTW prove me wrong boy!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.102.43.193 (talk)
Kukaan ei väitä etteikö Stalin olisi ollut vuosisadan roisto, mutta Wikipediassa käytetään tiettyä tietosanakirjatyyliä, jota on noudatettava. Editointi voidaan estää. --Vuo (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This file cannot be deleted because it does not exist here, it exists on Wikimedia Commons, where it may be used by any wikimedia project (other language wikipedia, wikibooks, etc). Please stop adding deletion tags to it. —Random83214:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a deletion request to Commons, but I cannot find it again. The image is not NPOV and is linked to only from one personal userpage in a gallery of "images I uploaded", in addition to being in a thumbnail image on the userpage of a fled user. --Vuo (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's in use on several other projects (see [8]) - also, a translated version is on the Czech wikipedia article on Swedish. I don't see the NPOV problem, can you explain it further? I also can't see your deletion request on commons, though if you would like help going through this process I'd be willing to help make sure you get it listed. —Random83219:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion request is here [9]. Discussion is found in Talk:Finland-Swedish. Basically, it's a hand-drawn map without subnational boundaries indicated, rather than a municipality-by-municipality colored map like its replacement. I assume it has been retained out of ignorance while the new map has been available. --Vuo (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TKK-logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:TKK-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. 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.
Hi Vuo, I appreciate your comments at Snipe Hunt, but its a very black-and-white issue - source the items or do not reinclude them. The one source was in Finnish, and did not appear to comply with WP:RS. This is a purely policy matter, not a content dispute. As such, I will be inclined to protect the page if unsourced trivia is readded despite the multiple requests and tags for the article to be brought in line with policy. I know you're a dedicated editor, would be awesome if you found some sources for the material. Thanks, Deiztalk06:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:EuropeArticleLanguages2.png
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:EuropeArticleLanguages2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Hi, thanks for your help. There is also this sentence "Asukkaista 84,5% oli ruotsinkielisiä ja 15,4% suomenkielisiä vuonna 1970 ja kunta oli kaksikielinen." What does it mean, please? TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand your reason for reverting the edits I made to Swedish as a foreign language. Besides reverting grammatical errors, you've also re-added a bunch of POV that is only a personal opinion about the Swedish language. The text you added appears to come from someone who has had a very negative introduction to the Swedish language, and also included errors about the grammar. If you can back up the text with citations, then feel free to do so. But re-adding it by only commenting "reverted Panda's edits; he's been complained about before" [10] is not a valid reason for any revert. –panda (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're a Swedish speaker. It is very difficult for a native speaker to assess which parts of one's native language are difficult to foreign learners. For example, native English speakers make different spelling errors compared to nonnatives. Nevertheless, the main problem I'm facing with listing problems specific to Swedish is the lack of references. I'm bringing the text to talk page. --Vuo (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the Finnish language, the root of the surname can be modified when inflected to a case. For example, the very common -nen is modified into -se- in oblique forms, e.g. Nieminen to Niemiselle "to Nieminen". In contrast, first names are not modified (e.g. Hilta - Hiltan).
Can you specify? In my opinion, even the first name is modified in inflection: Mikko -> Mikon, Klaus -> Klaun. The particular -nen -> -se inflection does not take place, but that is only because Finnish first names do not end with -nen, not because of any grammatical reason. --MPorciusCato (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Organic elements
Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Organic elements, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks a lot for commenting. Just to be absolutely clear, and avoid anybody misinterpreting your remarks, could you say if you prefer version 1 or 2 of the lead? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just a note to alert you to the fact that one of the editors of this article is now edit-warring to remove the sourced criticism that was agreed to in this RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo
Well... i do not like your "spelling/style corrections". And it is my right to dislike it... I will not undo it because i am less stubborn than you are. Have a nice day and please contribute to this article with some original content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you had participated in the discussion earlier, I thought you should know that there is now a Request for Comments on whether the TV show Brainiac: Science Abuse counts as science, pseudoscience, or something in-between. If you have further comments on the subjct your input here would be appreciated. -- HiEv20:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I read the Finalnd article discussion area and noticed that the user Turkuun has also caused some problems in Finland article with his radical edits. We have a similar situation with the Estonia article where he is trying to restructure and rewrite the existing and approved article chapters and headings. I was wondering if you could provide some help or advice in dealing with such contributor as Turkuun is? Karabinier00:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
August 2008
Please do not add content without citingreliable sources, as you did to Warning sign. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patria
Hi. Could you add some sources to your last addition to the affair article? Since the media coverage is good, there shouldn't be a problem to find any. Thanks. --Tone19:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate all your edits; but your claim that a vänrikki, who has only 12 months of military service, is assigned as commander of a battery or company upon mobilization seems very unlikely.
Please verify this.
--Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An officer in reserve can be posted as a battery commander, and their first rank is vänrikki. There are cases from the Second World War. --Vuo (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)ä[reply]
Again, thank you for your most valuable contributions to Finnish ranks :) To answer your reply: You refer to WW2, but it would be nice to know what position a reserve vänrikki may fill today upon mobilization? A vänrikki may be promoted to luuttnantti, yliluutnantti, luutnantti up to kapteeni and gradually reach positions such as deputy company commander up to company commander. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NowCommons: Image:Chloramine-T-2.svg
Image:Chloramine-T-2.svg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Chloramine-T.svg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Chloramine-T.svg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Homogeneous catalysts are less active than heterogeneous catalysts...
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!!02:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Archive 2009
source request
hello. could you provide a source for your statement on the Talk:Fluoride poisoning talk page that "the toxicity of organofluorines is entirely compound-dependent and not related to fluoride release." (italics added)? I am not sure that your assertion is correct, due to methoxyflurane page, (and fuzzy memories), but I would like to learn more in case you are right. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Werner Wanker, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
No evidence of notability. If it were not for the name, would this be here?
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.
Your edit was quite correct - the reference used (here) states "sulphur dioxide", not "suphur monoxide". I've updated the article accordingly (and removed your tag). Thanks for noticing this.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Condescension, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
Not worth an encyclopedia article, transwiki to Wiktionary and revert this to the redirect it was previously
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.
A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.
Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why add "during their lifetimes" (health effects of tobacco article)
I like your first clarification ("at the level of the individual") but I don't understand why you thought to add "during their lifetimes" to the sentence "For example, smoking tobacco is known to cause cancer in humans, but not all people who smoke necessarily develop smoking-related cancer during their lifetimes." -- as opposed to what, after their lifetimes? :)
Also, I'm not sure what to do about it but the sentence in the article "of which men are more likely to smoke than women, however the gender gap declines with age, poor more likely than rich, and people of developing countries than those of developed countries". I don't think it sounds very grammatical the way it reads now... do you have a better suggestion?
The lifetime of a tobacco smoker is shorter than that of a non-smoker. All of this difference is not because of excess incidence of cancer. That's why it's important to add the qualifier "during their lifetimes". --Vuo (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
your explanation sounds like you're now saying: "not all people who smoke necessarily develop smoking-related cancer during their lifetimes (which, however, are shorter than non-smokers for reasons other than cancer incidence)"... is this right? If that's what you mean, I'm afraid I still don't quite understand your point... 94.27.216.65 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't have the epidemiological data here, but as I remember it, most people who die from tobacco smoking don't die from cancer. We don't want to give the idea that tobacco smoking is safe EXCEPT for cancer, because that is simply not true. Rather, cancer kills only those that are alive after being exposed to other risks such as excess physiological stress that causes cardiovascular disease. Normal people (non-smokers) are not exposed to the same amount of cardiovascular disease-causing physiological stress as smokers, and live longer. --Vuo (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:TKK-logo.png. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Vuo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
Hi! I'm interested by your edit. You say: "The rank of most senior chaplain, Chaplain General, is also considered to be a general officer rank."
The most senior chaplains in many countries are indeed considered to be, in some sense or other, of "general officer rank". However, they are not often called "Chaplain General".
Can you expand upon your statement, and also, can you provide a supporting reference? Thanks in advance, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Jostain kumman syystä käyttäjäsivusi User:Vuo näkyi uudelleenohjaussivuna artikkeliin Kajaani kun katsoi kyseisen kaupungin "What links here" -erikoissivua. Muokkasin käyttäjäsivuasi niin, että poistin sieltä kaiken muun paitsi #redirect-määreen. Tämä näyttää korjanneen asian. JIP | Talk20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Taxation in Finland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Economy of Finland. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Economy of Finland - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JDDJS (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I saw the redlink "Taxation in Finland" in an article (see What links here), and just wrote something off the top of my head to start the article. Well, the funny thing is, that it was in fact me who wrote a corresponding - and slightly longer - text into another article. --vuo (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Taxation in Finland, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JDDJS (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your confused. I nominated the page through AFD. Discuss it on the discusion page for the deletion. don't put a hang on. JDDJS (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to request a photo of the actual plant that makes fluoroacetate (poison leaf is most common) and then change that out for the fluoroacetate molecule. (leave yours as the more interesting structure).
And sorry if I come across as aggressive on the talk pages. No one here to punch me in the nose, since it's the Internet. ;)
That's a good idea since you could in principle fill any article about an element with chemical structures. The fluoroacetate could be in the precautions section. --vuo (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NoleloverTalk·Contribs19:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All files in category Unclassified Chemical Structures listed for deletion
One or more of the files that you uploaded or altered has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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/them not being deleted. Thank you.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How to post an externally verifiable proof
Hi vuo
I am the author of the undone fine chemical article due to an uncertain copyright situation. I have now managed to get the admission from Wiley in pdf to post it on Wikipedia. I cannot post a page at Hikal as you suggested. How can I provide an externally verifiable proof accapted by Wikipedia? Thanks
--PeterRPollak (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'there's nothing unscientific about photochemistry'
I agree but the issue is about 'biophotons' which look to be the pseudoscientific version of photochemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Valtioneuvos
Hei! Ei se valtioneuvoksen titteli salaneuvoksesta periydy vaan vastaavasta valtioneuvoksen tittelistä, jos mistään. Tuo teksti on nyt väärin artikkelissa Valtioneuvos. --Pxos (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sissi (Finnish light infantry)/ famous sissi troops
I'll add a longer comment about the matter here; the United States military states that the only groups within United States military that can be called "Special forces" are the United States Army Special Forces (aka. "Green berets") and 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (aka. "Delta Force"), end of discussion. Ape89 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in addition to the last comment; because US military is strict about the distinction while pretty much everyone else seems to call every American special operations forces -unit just "specia forces" I think it's necessary to use the (more or less-) full name of the "Green berets" when it is the US Army Special Forces that the article/notion in an article is about. Also sorry for the double post. Ape89 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Varma move
I'm a bit taken aback by your move of Varma to Varma (name) in order to allow the former to be used as the page for a Finnish company. I'm particularly taken aback given that immediately prior to that move, you left this edit summary elsewhere. Your move was bold but I doubt that it is without controversy, so it might be better to revert and open a discussion. - Sitush (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it so that Varma is an alternate spelling, and as such it should not be primary title of the article in the first place. It appears to be so because a-macron is harder to enter than just 'a'. For instance, I have moved 'Jyrki Jarvilehto' to the correct 'Jyrki Järvilehto', and I doubt anyone would protest. The article appears to list several alternate spellings, of which any could be selected. Furthermore, articles on names are often of the 'Title (name)' pattern. Your comment on the previous edit is unnecessary and has no relation to this issue. (In there, I just happen to have a pet peeve for people deleting content from an article because it doesn't suit their whatever.) --vuo (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not so much an alternate spelling (eg: Brown/Browne, White/Whyte) as a name with a shared theme: India is a country with well in excess of 20 official languages and names there are often based on honorific or caste-related themes: historic transliteration between them is affected also by by recent transliteration from the various scripts to Western alphabets but the pronunciation remains distinct. Given the size of the India/Pakistani etc population and its diaspora, Varma and its variants are incredibly common. I see that you've now created a dab page: that is better but I'm still not entirely convinced. I've got no particular horse in this race: I've no connections to the subcontinent or to Finland etc. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've had a long think about this and I am going to be reverting you per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't care what Finnish WP might say, Varma is by far more common as an Indian surname than some insurance outfit. If Finnish WP want to do things differently then that is up to them but, obviously, they've got a systemic bias when it comes to representation of Finland-based articles. I have spoken to someone else about this and they agreed ... but I've forgotten who it was! I'll see if I can dig out that info before reverting, just so that you can see the rationale. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that Wikipedia has a "bias", or should avoid a "bias", etc.; that's terminology from journalism. It's not the job of Wikipedia to represent things in any sort of an "equal" way, because there's no "airtime" to share; anyone writing "Varma" to the search page has only one click extra effort to choose which page he meant. Having a disambiguation page is an inherently neutral choice. Trying to put "larger" or "more important" things first leads to unavoidable and unnecessary arguments about the hierarchy. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is about another topic, choosing between possible names, not about disambiguation. --vuo (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My whole argument is that it doesn't matter which is better known. There's no "bias", there's even no need to avoid a "bias". --vuo (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vuo, I removed that paragraph because it (especially the second sentence) made no sense. Why would Comecon want to thwart Soviet influence? Heavy Knife (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep looking at FL angle
Your concerns are well taken, but the article needs to not just be written for synth org folks like me, rather it has to include the biochemists (who are actually measuring such angle crystallographically), and it has to be clear how it is similar to but different from the BD. As it stands, the figure is so confusing, the legend has to become enormous to make clear to readers what the angle actually means. Also, it has to be clear that while Bürgi, Dunitz, et al measured angles in crystal structures to get this whole field going, with the FL, the numeric angle values of the trajectories are inferred (based on reaction outcomes and product ratios)—this plus a very little bit of theoretical work. Then there is the confusion engendered on the BD side, that cannot be allowed to spill onto the FL side —"the BD angle is 107 deg", as opposed to 107 in simple systems, and whatever else it might actually be measured to be in any other system studied (e.g., approaching 90 deg in proteases apparently). When you put these explanatory challenges alongside the problem with the image, we are faced with a daunting task. We either parrot what is in undergraduate textbooks (often incorrect); or we are encyclopedic, and write for all, including the laypersons, and those interested most in chemistry, biochemistry, crystallography, etc.
Bottom line, I want your fine mind involved in this. My vote would be we improve the FL image, then begin to discuss your specific objections to the "wall of text". The real concept and breadth is not as easy as a short lede and one picture (though with a good picture, a better lede could easily be written, before getting into the details). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flippin out
Really do want you involved, to help make this practically useful. Ping me any time with ideas—especially, if you have a good secondary source you you want to discuss, or the like. ALWAYS WELCOME. (Look back in a couple of days, new images going in.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I haven't been involved in this for a while. As it stands the article is quite far from being a general text, and it would take consirable expertise to bring it to that point, which I admit I don't have. Originally, I got involved as a student of Koskinen, but I haven't been there for half a decade. --vuo (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted my edit with explanation "Finnish language, not Finland; Finnish was a language of the Soviet Union also"
Well, the part is in a table with this just above it: The name of the currency in the languages of the 15 republics, in the order they appeared in the banknotes:
Finland was not a republic of Soviet Union, nor was Finnish name of ruble in the banknotes (as you can see from the reverse of 1961 ruble note in the infobox).
Of Finnish being language of Soviet Union, that should belong to Languages of the Soviet Union. Which claims (without source) that Finnish was "not generally considered a language of the USSR", but was official in Karelia. 82.141.95.243 (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea was that Finnish was an official language in Karelia. Since the Soviet Union was an ethnically diverse country, a dividing line on which languages to include and not include is always arbitrary. However, I think it would be better to err on the side of providing more information than less, since the number of languages is still fairly limited. Finnish could be counted as a language in which native use of the words "rupla" and "kopeekka" within the Soviet Union, in official contexts, occurred. It was not a "foreign" language. --vuo (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is clearly said before the table those are the languages which appeared in banknotes. Finnish did not, so it should be removed from the table. And it also says "in the languages of the 15 republics", and with Finnish there are 16, not 15. 82.141.95.243 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Technopolis Oyj for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
This addition to the FL article is the perfect sort of addition I had been hoping to see: [11], and I thank you for it. I would ask though, if at all possible, to make this fully yours—could you go back and choose and insert the best reference or two that supports your point, so that it does not later become seen as OR? I would appreciate it. I could of course choose something, but I would rather wait until you have time, so this edit is fully to your credit. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, Vuo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
...is back to being the confusing nonsense it was before August 2015, failing to distinguish between the various meanings of the title term in use, on the objection that my replacement lede was too long and technical (despite solid, scholarly sourcing). That is to say, instead of integrating the solid material into the article, and summarising it for the lede, the same naive lede tripe that had earlier existed there, was returned and so continues to exist.
As well, in your contributions, I see you have part and parcel added material without source, to the definitions section—paragraphs long material in fact. So, I give up. We clearly have differing understandings in terms of what is meant to follow WP:VERIFY, and to make these articles excellent. We now have a lead that is easier to read, but that is inaccurate to the uses the readers will find in their general reading, and want explained. And we have a definitions section, while accurate in large parts, that is "just trust me" material, based on your expertise, creating a trajectory for that section that will be fine until you are gone, in which case, the next editor, who thinks they know the field, changes it, likewise, without sources, since that is the pattern that has been set.
We are not editing the same encyclopedia, so we cannot edit the same articles. I, despite significant expertise, do not add material from that expertise, but only add material from sources. And I do not let anything that is incorrect or inaccurate stand just to be readable, and so an article looks good. So we part company. Know that no one anywhere, with any chemistry expertise, will sent entry level students to this article, as it is currently exists. We have written it to please ourselves, and its real utility is thus constrained. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this. It looks like it has no references; is the 'external link' actually a source rather than a friendly suggestion? If so, can you please make it clear in the article? Ping me if you need any help.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Hello, Vuo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Need for sources for your "Draft evasion" material
Dear Vuo, - I have spent much o the last month improving the Draft evasion article by streamlining its prose, adding reliable sources, and eliminating unsourced content. (See the "View history" tab there for the details.)
On 9 August 2016 you contributed a sub-section on Finland to the article. It is a wonderful piece of writing and I would like to retain it. However, in order to keep it I will need to verify its content (see WP:Verifiability), i.e. I will need to add reliable sources to each of its paragraphs. Otherwise I will have to eliminate it, as per WP:RS.
Because you added the sub-section so long ago, it may be difficult for you to add sources to it. If you cannot add specific sources to every assertion, you could add sources at the end of each paragraph, preceded by the phrase, "This paragraph draws material from the following sources." (See footnote #88 in the Draft evasion article for how to structure this. Obviously, if you can give page numbers, so much the better.) If mnost or all of your sources are in Finnish, that is OK. All you'd have to do is put at the end of each one, "Finnish-language publication."
It may be that you are too busy to do this. If so, please let me help you. Just put the sources you used, or could have used, in your reply below, and I will code them and put them into the sub-section, meanwhile giving you credit on the article's "View history" page.
Your contribution really brings the Finnish draft-evasion experience to life– that is why I want so much to retain it. I look forward to your response below. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vuo, - Thank you so much for promptly adding new material and citations to the Finland sub-section of the Draft evasion article! You will see that I have eliminated your last paragraph (reason given on the "Edit history" page of that article), but I hope you will integrate it into Wikipedia's Conscription in Finland article, where that material more properly belongs. In addition, I have lightly edited your contribution, largely in an effort to make your citrations resemble those in the rest of that article, something WP wants us to do (see WP:CITESTYLE). You might want to double-check my work there, as my knowledge of Finnish is nonexistent. Anyway, thank you again for your substantial work on the Finland sub-section. I want our whole article to someday be rated as a Good, and then a Featured, article. Unfortunately, young people around the world may need it. Best, - Babel41 (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expressive loan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Needs better referencing than an ambulance-chasing law firm!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Orphaned non-free image File:VTT logo low-resolution.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:VTT logo low-resolution.jpg. 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 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, Vuo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varma (given name) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Varma (given name) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varma (given name). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hitro talk08:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copterline until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Not a very active user (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Technology, Jaipur until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Dear Colleague, Thank you for contributing to the article on Finnish profanity, and for providing a source, as you did here. Unfortunately, the reference you added links to a website page about an incident that took place during the recent Paris-Roubaix cycling race, instead of an explanation of the word you added to the article, munaton. Therefore, whenever convenient to you, please provide a new source that explains that word. If it's easier, please feel free simply to add it in your reply below, and I will then use it to create the appropriate template into the article for you, instead of a bare url. Many thanks once again for your contributions to our encyclopedia. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!)19:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
){kind=link}
![[8]](http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php?i=Finland-swedish.jpg&w=_100000#end){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Finland-swedish.jpg){kind=link}
