User talk:Hydrox/Archive 2

Swedish Elections 2010
First, you write: "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." This is rather obnoxious and ill informed assessment. If you would like me to send you a copy of my CV, I would more than oblige you. I get the sense from you that anyone with a critical point of view is some kind of quack or fraud. That is not true. I have very good credentials in three fields.

First, I am a leading expert on the conversion of defense industries and industrial policy. I worked with some of the leading scholars in the world on that combination of topics. I published my dissertation on conversion of defense firms. I interviewed about 30 persons at Saab, including about 5 persons on the president level. I published a Linköping University working paper on that topic, I could cite that for you if you would like. I studied the defense industries of the UK, Sweden and the US and got money from the MacArthur Foundation to study the US defense industry. I did a postdoc at Linköping University to study Saab's diversification. I have interviewed top Swedish business leaders at Saab Aerospace, Ericsson, two very important firms. I have published peer reviewed journal articles about Swedish innovation policy.

Second, on the ethnic question, I initiated and led a 1.3 Million Euro project looking at how Swedish ethnic groups and women were incorporated into qualified, ICT-sector jobs. I published an article about this for UNESCO. I worked for a leading Swedish immigrant association, organized a series of seminars on democracy and immigrants (involving four PhDs), and conducted surveys, oral historical studies, and case studies about how firms incorporate immigrant groups in my EU project.

Third, on Swedish industrial policy, I organized the two day National Green New Deal Conference here, broadcast by SVT24, a leading news channel in Sweden. The conference included the heads of political parties, companies, environment and labor organizations. That makes me an authority on Swedish green policies, or their absence. Jonathan M. FeldmanJonathanMFeldman (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, very affirming credentials indeed, and I want by no means to question them or your expertise in general – that has been not my intention. However, you failed to answer how have your views on these elections gained attention in secondary sources outside of Wikipedia. Please try to see this purely as an issue of enforcing Wikipedia's policy. When I wrote that anyone can write a webpage and have something published, I was not accusing you or anyone specifically of vanity press, but to avoid problems, it is a guideline of Wikipedia to only accept views and facts that have been published in multiple sources. These guidelines exist to keep Wikipedia a readable and reliable source of information. Please also note that the guidelines have been erected partly in response to the stern criticism that Wikipedia has received in mainline academic circles. --hydrox (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

:SGE2010
Clarification of "control count" (theres nothing to link to, so it doesnt explainwaht the phrase means)(Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * Cool.(Lihaas (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * Nice edit, how did you make the diagram?Lihaas (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to try? ask me if you need help then. Im getting a headache thinking of code ;)Lihaas (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Swedish general election, 2010
Superb, I am taken :) My first barnstar ♥ --hydrox (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

COI
Seems like only the 2 of us are monitoring the article, I was wondering if you believed the edits in the Analysis section previously that linked to counterpunch (and not another source) were a Conflict of Interest? I've mentioned something on Conflict of interest/Noticeboard to see if it would be considered so. Would you mind taking a look?

ps- I added the potential landmark event to your change in the lead, it should be phrased better. But feel free to change it.Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A bug in a user box?
Thanks for the fix. but i don't understand the difference. Can you let me know it? -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanataion. :) -- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Elections page help
can you see Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010? the infobox is rather large, i was wondering how to decrease it. Woudl aprreciate your help.Lihaas (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks.(Lihaas (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)).
 * One more query, in Bihar legislative assembly election, 2010 the infobox doesnt come otu to show party and alliance like our Swden election showed. Could you see what the problem is? Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. There was a "section" called Minor Candidates after the usual infobox parameters. Due to the way template parameters are implemented in the MediaWiki software, later parameters overwrite preceding ones, and you cannot have for example . I removed the "Minor Candidates" section as Infobox Election does not support it. How does it look now? --hydrox (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thabnks, much better, but the image is not coming up. It usually does, although is that because i havent add the other person's image?Lihaas (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thank you for your patience and good-faith efforts to encourage other editors, and to keep assuming good faith. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Hydrox! There has been more activity at this alert-page, with a new insult by Bishonen — sigh .... Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I haven't been able to be active regarding the SGE2010 article. I am very busy with another project right now, but will be hopefully able to catch up soon.. --hydrox (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've come to regard that Wikiquette page as a waste of time. In the future, I would suggest just asking administrators for help who have been active in establishing Wikiquette fairly and impartially, e.g. Vernon Whitely and Charles Matthews, in my experience. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

why are you adding taxable net worths
Why are you adding Finnish taxable net worths to different articles? they really have no usable meaning to a person not familiar with the Finnish taxation system.

They are very badly correlated to any one persons true net worth. Especially really rich people like Aatos Erkko (whos real net worth is probably surpassing a billion) that have made arrangements to control his assets through various trusts, holding companies and other constructs seem to have a much smaller net worth according to the annual who-to-envy data.

Another example is antti herlin, forbes ranks him at 1.5 billion if i remember correctly, while the Finnish tax office says 15 million or something like that.

for fi.wiki it is another thing but i think they are redundant or even misleading here really.

Gillis (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was cleaning up image vandalism from articles like Jorma Ollila and Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo and thought about how the articles could be improved, when I saw the empty |salary = field in the infobox person and decided to look up the data from freshest records, and in doing so also came across the taxable property value numbers. I've removed all the (taxable) "net worth" values as they really badly correlate with reality as you said (ie. usually much less than real net worth) and adding them was not an especially good idea in the first place. But what do you think about the salary field? --hydrox (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Tahvo Putkonen
Could you provide us with translations of the sources you've found on the article's talk page? Google translate isn't very good in this case, and from that it looks as if the source not exactly reliable. If we have good translations that will make resolving that issue much easier. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically the article, in its current form, is a adaptation of the source to a Wikipedia article, so translating the source would be pretty much duplication of effort. The primary source is titled "Henkirikoksista kuolemaan tuomittujen kohtaloita vuosina 1824-1825 Suomessa", Selected destinies of those executed for crimes in Finland 1824–1825. I'd place my bets on you being wrong if you have the guts to suspect the credibility of this source. The article in question was published in the journal "Genos" of The Genealogical Society of Finland. The writer is a Licentiate of Philosophy; a degree inferior to Ph.D. but superior to a Masters Degree in the Finnish system. She has numerous entries on Google Books and the same article can be found via Google Scholar (first result). So, although the web page is not equipped with the latest Web 2.0 UI design, I don't understand why would it make it any less reliable. --hydrox (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The original article author (Otonkoski) claims following sources for her work: National Archives document reference SOO pag. 221/1823 and Vaasa Appeals Court (Hovrätt) subordinate cases records 1823 / case number. 69, D 1 74 --hydrox (talk) 15:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I have to add, Google Translate is just a useless tool for translating Finnish-English. It is moderately useful for translating eg. German-English, French-English, Swedish-English or Dutch-English, but due to linguistic reasons, the results of Google Translate for Finnish as a target or source language are always incomprehensible gibberish. So please don't trust your judgement on it. :) --hydrox (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree with your assessment of Google Trans for Finnish. Not that I speak Finnish, but I'm good with German, passable in French, and can follow Spanish, and one can get a feel for how good the translations are by how malformed the English is. I certainly have the guts to suspect the credibility of any source, but hopefully the good sense to check it out and make a reasonable assessment. Feel free to call me on any statements I make that seem foolish or ill-advised, I won't mind. Thanks again for the info, should be pretty easy to sort this out. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reread the google translation again, and it seems that the author expresses some doubts, and that some sources are lacking, I really think we need a translation of the pertinent portions of the article--could I trouble you to provide same? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Otonkoski article tells first Putkonen's story. This is basically what it says now in the wiki-article, so I won't duplicate it. In the end, there's some analysis of the sources, that I didn't write in the wiki-article:

Kansallisarkiston diarion ilmoittamasta paikasta ei löydy Staffan Putkosen aktia. ...

Staffan Putkonen's documents were not found, where National Archives' index claimed them to be at. (ed. During this period Swedish version of person's name was used in official contexts. Staffan is Swedish version of Finnish Tahvo) Vaasa's provincial archive has transcript copies of the District Court proceedings and pardon appeals from 1823 and 1824, but Appeals Court papers are missing. The index has also reference to an appeal for pardon from 1825, but the document could not be found. Execution certificate is missing as well, but it was attached to only two of the documents in question, so it was probably never archived. (ed. full documents were later found, see below)

Pieksämäki parish register has a remark that the verdict was put into action (ed. meaning Putkonen was executed) on 8 July, 1825. The Swedish-language parish register document says: "8/7 8/7 Suonenjoki Og. drg Staff. Staffs. Putkone death-sentenced to be executed"

This would therefore be the last death-sentence to be enacted for which documents could be found, for the time being.

Analysis

The insufficient documents don't contain "clergy document", which would show Putkonen'a background information. The available court proceedings documents or the death certificate don't show Putkonen's date of birth/age. No document about the victim's (Hirvonen) death was found either. (ed. Each of these documents were later found, as explained in this later article Lisäyksiä artikkeliini "Henkirikoksista kuolemaan tuomittujen kohtaloita vuosina 1824–1825 Suomessa" (Genos 1997:2), Additions to my article "Selected destinies of those executed for crimes in Finland 1824–1825" (Genos 1997:2). The documents were found by Seppo J. Kääriäinen from the National Archives with reference SOO pag. 124/1825)

The situation was strongly linked with alcohol and an aggressive outburst of violence for an unknown reason. A piece of firewood seems to have been quite an ordinary weapon at its time for murder. The sentenced's behavior after the event could show that he doesn't have full recollection of the events, and tried to move the blame on others.

During the police interrogations Mr. Putkonen made some quite extraordinary claims about his landlord Juho Lukkari. (ed. Lukkari, in whose house the murder/manslaughter took place. Also note that the time's law did not make distinction between a murder and manslaughter. In modern times the crime would have probably been a manslaughter.) Putkonen claimed that Lukkari had cut his late father's heart out of the dead man's chest. This begs the question, if Mr. Putkonen was quite mentally stable. The claims were clearly debunked during the police investigation.

Court proceedings show that Mr. Putkonen never pled guilty, but the court saw the witness testimony as sufficient proof. In a string of many similar cases, this was probably the last one, where no mitigation was granted. Could this have been affected by the accused's stubborn and unsympathetic behavior? Maybe Tahvo was not one of the locals, an "outsider", come from another village for work?

[...]

Last execution

Marttila's Tiipilännummi has a monument for the "last executed" Antti Hannula, executed on 22 October, 1824. Yrjö Blomstedt claimed that 3 May, 1825 executed Juho Hautimäki would have been the last. (ed. in "Viimeinen mestaus", book Suomen historia volume 5, 1986) But 1825 documents show one even later executed Tahvo Putkonen on 8 July, 1825, whose interrogation reports are not full, but on whom there's a clear marking in Pieksämäki parish documents about the execution.

Overall, especially when combined with the documents that were later found, I would say that the historicity of these events is pretty undoubted. Otonkoski writes in the "additions" article, that the new documents support her earlier findings. So, multiple documents show how the events progressed. It is thus probable, that Mr. Putkonen was the last person to be executed by peace time court order in Finland, unless new evidence surfaces. --hydrox (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the translation, I've copied to the article's talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Question
For Swedish general election, 2010, the article doesnt mention how the government was formed. By that i mean how the coalition got the necessary minimum seats. Would you know the answer to this?(Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).


 * I am not really an expert on Swedish constitutional issues. But I would guess its some sort of normal parliamentary process how the government was formed. Anyway, they now have a minority government, so it has to co-operate with the opposition more closely than usual. The opposition (Red-Greens + Sweden Democrats), if united in the vote, could overthrow the current government by voting on a motion of no confidence against them. --hydrox (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Help
can you see/comment on the disruptive user and his tag team User_talk:HJ_Mitchell(Lihaas (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).


 * Sorry, I can't find the red line where to start in the discussion. What is the issue about? --hydrox (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Delbirate typos
There's a template pair Typo} and Not a typo designed to encapsulate deliberate or apparent typos and save them from correction. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).


 * Nice, thanks for the info! --hydrox (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

RFC
Can you comment on this? Requests_for_comment/Lihaas(Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).
 * ✅ --hydrox (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice one
Nice one on Smartphone. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

reactor incident
hi. could you please take a view on whether there should be a separate section on evacuations or whether info about evacuations should be dispersed through the text. Sorry, but it is quite urgent to settle this as lots of edits are running by while we argue about it. thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ --hydrox (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Overwhriting image
Why? Both original and uploads are copyrighted. What is the point of uploading a second one only to request deletion of the original poor quality one? Only one of the images can be used because neither are free, and only the one of higher quality should be needed. Nergaal (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the second thought, you are right, but this can cause confusion unless you are careful. Cheers, --hydrox (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

re: splitting
It's a horrible thing you just did. The main article wasn't particularly large, and now they're going to get progressively out of step again. We now have to do everything six times. EVERYTHING ON THE ACCIDENT IS STILL ON TOPIC ON THE PLANT PAGE. All of the accident applies to the plant and things directly related to the plant, it's entirely on topic there. That's why they were diverging. And nobody was updating the plant article. And nobody is going to.

It's an obvious move to split, but while there's so much editing going on, it doesn't get us anywhere.

So the obvious move is wrong.

We could have always split later anyway, with total complete ease. In meantime it's just pointless make-work.Rememberway (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If we have to split later anyway, what's the point of not splitting now? People want to have up-to-date information about the incident. Previously when it was all clumped into the facility article, it was hard to browse and there was lots of duplicacy. Now we have a short summary of the current situation at the plant article (just like with Chernobyl and Three Mile Island). The latest, cutting-edge information can go to accidents article and accidents article only, the referencing summary on the plant article is updated as things progress. Note that Wikipedia is not news, so if things go a bit out of sync for a while, it is not the end of the world, and we can always fix it as editors, right? --hydrox (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your rationale, and thanks for doing the split of Fukushima I nuclear accidents‎ and Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant‎ per the overwhelming consensus and moving the tables of current status to Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents‎. Obankston (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support, --hydrox (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)