User talk:Suomi Finland 2009/archive1

Happy Deepavali தீபாவளி வாழ்த்துக்கள் In 2009, Deepavali occurs in purattasi, which is truly exceptional and once in a lifetime. Therefore, I am celebrating Deepavali much more than usual.


 * I am not from India but I have an appreciation for India.

Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA hypo
responded on my talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Additions to India article
Hello, please do not add personal commentary to articles like you did on India. Information that you add has to be sourced to reliable sources. Happy editing. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Will get sources. Thank you. I added fact, not opinion, but will get reliable sources. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you please discuss the proposed changes to the article on the talk page Talk:India ? The article is a featured article and also written in summary style, so new additions are usually well scrutinized for relevance, due weight, neutral wording and source quality, and are best discussed before being implemented. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly! I have explained the logic on the talk page. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Abecedare (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, no edit warring occurring. See your own talk page.  Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm...just saying, that's not a harsh template. It's the standard edit warring template. And just because Abecdare may have made a mistake doesn't mean that he/she is aggressive. Just clearing things up. Abce2 | This is  not a test  23:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The template was correctly applied, Suomi Finland 2009. Below are your three attempts to add essentially the same content to the India article, within a five hour period, against consensus, with your third edit coming after being reverted by two different editors (and with the very misleading edit summary "result of talk page discussion"): That is known as "edit warring". Abecedare's notification of your edit warring occurred at 02:56, 26 September 2009. His note to you was actually a courtesy that is ideally made to all editors who engage in edit-warring, so that they don't unknowingly violate WP:3RR and receive a block. Please read Wikipedia policies on edit-warring (WP:3RR) and Consensus (WP:CON). Priyanath talk 00:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 18:21, 25 September 2009
 * 19:09, 25 September 2009
 * 23:27, 25 September 2009

(after ec) Suomi Finland 2009, the above message was placed to inform you of wikipedia's 3 revert rule, which you were on the verge of breaching at the India page. I, and others, have also explained the reason we think your edits to the article are undue. Of course, we can continue that content discussion on the article talk page. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Reg: Your message
I don't know if this was a jest or a taunt : Deepavali changed to Diwali based on Deepak background .I'll take it as a jest. Anyways I don't celebrate Diwali.

And about your defence that what you were offering to GoG does not amount to meatpupetry, please don't take a verbatim interpretation of rules. The spirit of the rule is being violated here. GoG was blocked precisely because of his misunderstanding of the rules in Wikipedia. He thought he could just talk to people and convince them to write that Goa is a disputed territory. He refused to follow the rules and got blocked. And if you insist on following in his footsteps, I have no doubt you will land up where he is right now. Your belief that you are helping a poor guy whom everyone seems to dislike is incorrect.

I don't understand why you are so obsessed about Goa. Not that it is a problem but I wonder if it is out of some anger you have because your edits were reverted. I hope you dont think that Goa is a poor backward state whose people are reeling under Indian oppression! Rather it is among India's richest states and you will find a wealth of articles about it on WIkipedia and outside it. So look around and you can satisfy your curiosity. You will find all the references you want. You can ask me too. Just don't expect me to explain everything out to you.

And about my signature. I had some problems with it so i had to keep the default.

I just took a look at your contributions and it seems that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. Please take care. Take sometime to understand the rules. They are here for your good. --Deepak D'Souza 18:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

2009
for 2009. Will resume editing in the next decade after the usual first of the month wikibreak. Happy New Year! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd
FYI:


 * I really hope the notability guidelines problem will be fixed in a few days. There's currently a problem that we in the process of fixing. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you give me the text of 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan to maintain in my userspace? Obviously consensus does not favor its inclusion now, but that may change someday and I'd like to preserve the content. Everyking (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have used the new incubator scheme - Article Incubator/2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. This makes the article available to more people, and seems appropriate in this case.  SilkTork  *YES! 10:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

trip by heads of government to China or Japan AFD
Hi, I see you are deciding on the AFD. Let me add some analytical points. I'm not advocating delete or keep at this point as I am neutral. Comments to follow in minutes.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec):I have decided the outcome, and am writing up my rationale at the moment. The consensus of several discussions is that 2009 Barack Obama visit to China should be merged to Sino-American relations - and I support that. The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete, and I will go with that. Do you feel your points would have an impact on such an outcome?  SilkTork  *YES! 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because there are already complaints that Wikipedia is Ameri-centric. The fact that we keep some information about the American president but discard similar information about the Australian PM.

I'm more concerned because it shows that the notability guidelines are being followed with varying compliance, some more than others. That's bad when there is unequal application of the guidelines. I'm not sure how to improve the guidelines to address that problem.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you're not already aware of it, then WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be of interest to you. Regards  SilkTork  *YES! 10:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Feel free to leave whatever message you would like on my talk page; I'll have a word with Proofreader. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (The matter is being discussed.) Proofreader77 (interact) 02:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Permission by Floquenbeam to be as rude and graceless as one wishes on her, um, his user talk page has been granted ... as a sign of the magnanimous spirit of the new administrator, but bear in mind the effect on one's reputation. As per email exchange, enjoy real life dinner party, where rude behavior would result in quickly being shown the door &mdash; not by the host, but by other guests who know what propriety means.  -- Proofreader77 (interact)  02:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Participant
Participating 21 January to 26 January 2009. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama Health Care
You would be better off doing a Google search. The Obama article is not forthcoming about the plan. Might be editors there want to keep Obama from being associated with the failure of the plan. But in terms of crafting legislation in the U.S., you are correct, The president's key people in charge of health care have been writing the bill and the addendums and meeting with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to negotiate what they can and cannot put in this bill. So Obama is well aware of what is going on. He had a good idea originally, but it's quickly went out of control because there's no effective counter weight by the Republicans because they were outnumbered and weren't being consulted. With new Senator from Massachusetts, that will change. For now, health care reform is moot. Wait until after elections in November to see what becomes of the debate. Don't expect any major legislation passed, however, until after the 2012 elections. Hope this helps. I take it you are in Finland?  Malke 2010  01:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I am the wrong person to go to that talk page and say "you are probably wrong about the Presidential staff not writing a proposed law".  The Barack Obama article is well referenced but the selection of sentences pieced together is not very good.  I think a professional writer could fix that article but then Wikipedia discourages experts.  The only way that could happen would be if Jimbo Wales said, "lay off for a week and let User:Professional Writer (name made up) rewrite the article".  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Saab Spyker Automobiles
According to [| saab newsroom] and [|| spyker press release]it will change its name to Saab Spyker Automobiles.--Godzillerdood (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  mjwilson  (Talk/Contrib) 19:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It was very constructive. However, I've reworded it to sound better and even included a citation. This is guesswork since your message above is just a form letter and not very descriptive. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion process
Creating a system where we have to have a separate debate, following an AFD, to decide whether or not to merge content and where to merge it to... it seems a bit clunky to me. I mean, we already have a process for discussing merging; flag it up on the talk pages of the affected articles. In cases like this, the best approach seems to be to merge (or to merge to talk), and then let that process occur organically. If the "target" feels it can be incorporated, great; if not, it'll be removed, no harm done, and there's a note on the talkpage explaining what happened.

Thinking of it as a way to "defy" or "mock" AFD decisions is a bit off; routine discussion and AFD are two separate processes, working together, and equally able to make decisions on what to do with content. If people are deliberately being misbehaved over this, going around and un-merging content just because they didn't like an AFD decision, then that's something we can deal with in regard to that person, but this doesn't seem to be such a case. Shimgray | talk | 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem: If an AFD is to merge, the editors in the receiving article may not want the merged text (might want 0% of it, not just some of it)

After thinking it over, I think the best way is for the adminstrator to "ask" the object/target of the proposed merged if they are willing to take it. If they take some of it, then merge is ok. If they don't want any of it, then the administrator can take that into account about whether to keep or delete. The administrator can "ask" the receiving talk page maybe 2 days before closing. This doesn't have to be policy but just common courtesy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that seems sensible - if an AFD is debating a merge option, notify the relevant pages and let them feed into it. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Salahis
I still strongly feel that the event article is more appropriate than the individual Salahi entries. As colorful as their backgrounds may be, I still think they are only notable for one event, and WP:ONEEVENT states "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". If they obtain greater notability down the road, I'd certainly condone separate articles for them; for example, if the Salahis are chosen as contestants for The Real Housewives of Washington, D.C., that alone would probably do it. However, if the Salahi articles are kept, I think it would be much more appropriate to have one Tareq and Michaele Salahi article, rather than one for each. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  23:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that there should only be the gatecrashing article, and not the gatecrashing event and the individual biographies. However, those biographies have gone through an AFD, and the result was keep. At this point, the scope of our discussion is only whether the two biographies should be merged into one, not deleted in favor of the gatecrashing article. —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  01:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually think the event article is more appropriate to keep than the bios. But that article is also going through an AFD, so we should really respect that process. Honestly, my recommendation is simply to focus on whether to combine the two Salahi biographies at this point. Maybe in a month or so, when the media circus has died down and we have a better prospective on the lasting impact of the whole situation, we can revisit whether we want to merge the bios and the event article. Not now though... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2009 White House gatecrash incident
Hi, I think you mistakenly posted the same thread twice. -- Pink Bull  20:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then simply delete one thread, like I did. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Goa
The problem with your Goa suggestion is that India is a Federation and many states have special situations vis-a-vis the central government. Jammu and Kashmir is the most obvious example, of course, but there are land ownership issues in hill states, religious protection in Arunachal Pradesh, etc. and many special situations arise. It is impossible to put one ahead of the other and, since India is a summary article, it is best to avoid all special situations, except where the situation is of political importance and effects other nations (China and Pakistan mostly). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking at this from the wrong end. If you start with "Goa is a special case" (or "Sikkim is a special case") then you'll end up feeling that Goa (or "Sikkim") is being excluded by "opponents". However, if you look at the India article, see it as a summary article, then you'll be more parsimonious in what you think should be included. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, the only reason Goa is a "special case" is that the Portuguese were stubborn enough that they needed to be kicked out whereas the British and the French realised that their time was up and decided to leave in a dignified manner. Did you know that there were 552 princley states in India which, in a matter of speaking were independent of Brithish India but subservient to the British crown. Each of them had to sign an instrument of acession to transfer sovereignity to India or Pakistan. So thats 552 "special cases".


 * I hope you will not give any more ideas to Gaunkar. He is a nut and is seriously out of touch with reality. He pounced upon your edits and is hoping to gain some more support for his crazy little independence movement on Wikipedia. Dont feed the trolls. --Deepak D'Souza 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't call others a "nut". I have not investigated Mr. of Goa, just read what he wrote to me.  Mr. R. Park's comments are appreciated and I will consider them.  Goa was the site of an battle, just as the battles with Pakistan.  In contrast, the French controlled sections were generally peacefully transferred to India as with most foreign controlled areas.  I am for article improvement, not just topic insertion so I will consider everything.  I will be on a self imposed wikibreak starting tomorrow for a few days.  This will be done as a matter of routine, once a month for at least 1 day, maybe a few days, starting on the first. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers a mentoring program - are you interested in having a mentor?
Wikipedia offers a mentoring program for new editors, to help them become familiar with Wikipedia procedures and get up to speed quickly. Would you like to have a mentor? The program is called Adopt-a-User and you can read about it at WP:ADOPT and Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area. If you would like some occasional help but don't feel like having a mentor would be helpful, you can also ask for assistance with particular questions at the Editor's Assistance page, WP:EA. Welcome to Wikipedia, and I hope you will make use of one of these avenues of assistance. --Uncia (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort & Casino
A tag has been placed on Inn of the Mountain Gods Resort & Casino, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Mr. Vernon was right, and I deleted the article. We're not saying that no article on that business is possible ... if you can find reliable sources establishing notability, then it will be fine.  We're saying that that article would make a bad impression on someone coming to Wikipedia for encyclopedic information, because it sounds like an advertisement. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Al. New Mexico
This looks good now. I suggest you put the bit on when the museum is open into the footnote, rather than the text. Also, I'll have to check the rules for GA: I'm not sure if you need a bibliography and a set of footnotes. If that is the case, take a look at Inner German Border for examples of how to create a decent bibliography with all those newspaper articles. Maybe you could write something on Charles Bishop Eddy next. We need something on him, and there's quite a bit out there written about him already. Just not on wikipedia. Let me know when it's nominated. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

🇫🇮 Finland

Alamogordo
Alamogordo, New Mexico is current being considered for promotion to Good Article status; see WP:GAN. Please don't make any large changes until the review is over, because one of the criteria to be promoted is that the article is stable; see WP:WIAGA. --Uncia (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote: "The references are of different format ... I looked at the FA. This is unacceptable." What part of FA are you looking at? If you mean WP:WIAFA criterion 2c, this just means that the citations need to be either all footnote-style or all Harvard-style, it doesn't apply to the internals of the footnote, and in particular does not apply to the date format. Please do not make needless changes. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove repeated wikilinks
Please do not remove repeated wikilinks from the articles. Repeated links are permitted if they are far away from each other in the text, see Linking. I realize that you are trying to help, but you are new here and Wikipedia has many, many rules that have been developed over the years and should be followed. Take a little time and learn the most important rules before you start editing. There are links to them in the Welcome message at the top of this page. The book Wikipedia: The Missing Manual is also very valuable; you can read it online at Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. Thank you. --Uncia (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Abecedare (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied to your last message on my talk page. Please let me know if you already have that page watchlisted, since then I don't need to leave these talkback messages. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support at my RFA. Irrespective of the outcome, I am happy to get it, since it affirms that wikiprocesses of calm discussion can work even when the parties get off on the wrong foot. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd unblock
Yes, it is. Sometimes block logs get oversighted or suppressed, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks!
thanks for the barnstar suomi!

do you know of any place to discuss the deletion policy other than "black kite"s page?

Richmondian (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK
Im not sure that there needs to be a change in DYK per se... I understand that the focus there is the creation of articles. But you are right in that there is no comparable "prize" for improving articles that are longer than stubs, but are pretty much crap. Redefining DYK too much will make it for other than "new" articles, something the community will not go for IMHO.Thelmadatter (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dont I know it! I went through the process once with the Mexico City Cathedral and decided it wasn't worth the headache. So much nitpicking! I admit I'm really bad about all the little stuff (typos, measurement conversions, hard spaces etc etc etc). Id rather focus on providing information. Fortunately, getting gold stars from WP is not the only reason I work on improving articles on Mexico. It helps my Spanish reading ability and vocabulary and a learn a lot about my adopted country. If in the end, my work ends up as a 5x expansion ... I toss it onto the DYK suggestion list.Thelmadatter (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fewer rules conflicts
Thank you for the invitation to comment. I'm always willing to talk about making guidelines more clear, and if there are examples of two rules that actually appear to contradict each other, then the solution is to make something consistent with the values that the two opposing sides represent. Some things definitely need to be more clear. I think that half of the people who use the phrase "indiscriminate list" have no clue what "indiscriminate" means (the irony being that they use the word indiscriminately). I think that most people who cite the "notable for one event" rule have never read the rule. On the other side of the spectrum are people who aren't aware of the concept of "historically notable", simply because it's a phrase buried deep into the definition of notability. That's why I spend a lot of time in the AfD forum, because it sometimes happens that a person needs to speak up when the rules are being described incorrectly.

Though none of the administrators will ever admit to it, most of these come down to a majority vote, which takes two forms-- either the majority followed a stated policy, in which case the outcome was "keep" or "delete"; or the majority went against stated policy, in which case the outcome is "no consensus" (i.e., maybe this won't happen next time it comes up for a vote). I'm interested in hearing what you (or any other editor) believes to be the most commonly encountered example of conflicting rules. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Amanda Knox
I'm guessing the article was previously deleted as per WP:BLP1E while the trial was ongoing, because of possible BLP considerations dependent on the outcome. Now that's she's convicted, I dunno. I think the best thing to do is leave a message at WP:BLPN, so I'm doing that now. John Carter (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article has been redirected to Murder of Meredith Kercher and fully protected to avoid unnecessary re-establishment. There is no real argument for AK to have her own article. The talk is still open for interested parties. Thanks,  raseaC talk to me 01:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Re:ANI
Regarding your question on ANI, that removal of the merged text would not be appropriate to bring up at WP:DRV. DRV is only for issues which require admin intervention to delete/undelete an article from the database. A merge doesn't fall under those categories, and should simply be discussed at the article's Talk page. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was AN, not ANI. Also see your talk page for my question. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bulleted lists of notable residents
The use of bulleted lists in the Notable natives and residents sections of city articles is deprecated; see WP:USCITY. I have reverted your reformatting of the list in Alamogordo, New Mexico to its previous prose form. --Uncia (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits of Healthcare in Alamogordo, New Mexico
Your recent edits of the Healthcare section of Alamogordo, New Mexico removed important information, and changed the sense of the remaining information. I have reverted the section to its previous version. Please discuss your proposed changes on the article's talk page before making them again. Thank you. --Uncia (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

aiding the translation
Suomi, I have recently become entranced with this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE9sQEw0W4s. However, I do not speak Finnish ... some say I barely am speaking English! LOL! Anyway, could you translate the lyrics for me? Or even just a gist of what it's about? THX - Secretoffatima (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

photo in alamagordo
there is nothing wrong with the photo. but go to the photo page, and remove the vandalism in it. Auntieruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

South Georgia
Eh, no I'm not really living in South Georgia. Please, don't take my userboxes too seriously, as almost all of them are just a half-hearted attempt to look stupid (and I really don't like to give away information about myself online). I simply chose South Georgia, because it seems like a very obscure location to be at home, and I'm not even sure if anyone is living there, besides ruthless hordes of man-eating penguins and a few scientists every now and then. Btw, I don't think it is good to be friends with someone, just because he lives in an isolated, lonely place. He could be an asshole just as much as someone from an overcrowded megacity. And honestly, if I truly were from South Georgia I wouldn't want to be treated differently than if I were from Madrid, Windhoek or Cherrapunji. In real life it might be difficult at times, but at least online the way you are treated shouldn't depend on where you are from. So, if you want to be friends with me, then because of who I am, anything else is futile and does no good. (Lord Gøn (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC))
 * So a bit of fun with details is ok?! ;p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be ok? I mean, it's nobody's concern here on Wikipedia who I really am and I think the userboxes are absurd enough not to take them seriously. And as long as my contributions are fine, why should anyone be bothered by a little bit of nonsense? (Lord Gøn (talk) 09:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC))

Talkback
Ged UK  18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Goa feeling the heat?
Check this out, Don't call this POV ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.17.155 (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * See here and here for discussions on this subject. The user appeared to be spamming entirely random people (though I now know that is not the case). They also provided no context for the messages, lending support to my decision at the time. Furthermore, they also also appear to be an indefinitely blocked user and shouldn't be posting anything. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Goa is a big city. The annexation of Goa is controversial.  Therefore, you will have some people in Goa who feel very strongly and may edit in one of the largest websites, Wikipedia.  It's like Northern Ireland.  All users with similar opinions (pro or against something) are not necessarily the same.  You should not be using excuses to muzzle people as long as the other people behave.  Is that IP disruptive to my user talk page?  No.  Are you disruptive to my user page?  No, but you are creating a bit of unneccessary drama.  So on the disruptive scale, neither one of you is disruptive but you are closer (still far away) of the two to being so.  Just let it go.  That IP isn't doing anything disruptive as of 10 minutes ago. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry. I was trying to clean up what I thought was a spammer and then found out was simply indefinitely blocked, a minor issue that no-one really cares about, and then I was explaining why I did that to you. Forgive me for trying to help Wikipedia. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 16:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. I don't expect everyone to know the history behind discussions.  You also assume that the IP is the same person as that other user.  That's like saying that anyone in Pakistan who does not like India is the same person or any anti-Hamas edits from Israel is the same person.  This is not always the case.  With those conflicts, editors should try to be civil as much as possible.


 * In case the IP is reading this, occasional posts are welcomed but extremely frequent posts may be considered spam. Everyone in WP is always welcomed to leave friendly messages here, at least until I change my mind.  Be happy!  Be nice!  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

block review
I ask for reviews of all my blocks, I believe it is the honourable thing to do. I take your points on board, but given my position I don't see them as applying. Not sure what the Wall Street Journal Europe has to do with it unless I have made the news. Hiding T 18:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hiding T 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Valley2 city ‽ 01:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dutch agency
If I can find some time, I will try to work on it. Thanks for letting me know!  fetch  comms  ☛ 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:please explain
Concerning your question on Garden's talk page, the section is discussing good and featured topics. Basically, if you promote an article that is already in a topic, you get points for the promotion as normal, but you don't get extra points for the topic. However, if you manage to add an article to a topic that is already good or featured, you can claim the extra topic points. I appreciate this is a rather fiddly distinction- do you understand this now? If not, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. I was the one who wrote that line, so I apologise if it is a little difficult. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Foreign trips
My position is simple: if the trips receive substantial press coverage, they should have articles. Everyking (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Donation of points
Sorry? Do you mean people leaving the competition could "donate" their points to someone else still in the competition? If so, I don't like that idea at all. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's try this again...
I've obviously upset you somehow. The most likely explanation is a language thing, so can we work out what it is, and maybe I can avoid it in the future.
 * 1) you make an edit at User page with the edit summary  bold change of a bold change, but this is discussed on the talk page. Feel free to revert to the July 31 version
 * 2) I don't think this change has improved things.  I change it back with the edit summaryReverted good faith edits by Suomi Finland 2009; You were bold, I'm reverting. See talkpage.  using the Twinkle template for reverting an edit which was made in good faith. So at this point, I have acknowledged that your edit was in good faith, explained that this is a WP:BRD reversion, and that I intend to explain myself on the talkpage.
 * 3) I then go to the talkpage, and explain why I don't think your edit was an improvement on the previous.

You then post on my user page, but your whole post reads very strangely. You are evidently upset - don't know why. You are apparently accusing me of edit warring be mindful that your reverting can, in some articles, turn into an edit war. I really don't understand why you said this. I've never edited that article before. You invited anyone who disagreed to feel free to revert. When I say that, I actually mean "if you don't agree, just revert". I don't mean "if you revert me I will accuse you of edit warring." Also, the policy is WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. I have followed this, so I can't for the life of me see why you are accusing me of edit warring, so I'm annoyed.

You also drag in a reference to saying something to Jimbo Wales. I think it is a cultural thing, but in England, namedropping like that is not considered a good thing to do. The person who does it risks being considered a poser - someone who says such things only to enhance their own status. It may be different in Finland.

Then we have another cultural issue I think. I said "get a grip." This colloquial phrase means "stop running around doing or saying meaningless, random or unhelpful things". So in this case "get a grip" - combined with the rest of my response, means "do stop telling me I'm edit warring when I'm not."

You then come back, read a rant from an IP who is cross that I have listed an article for deletion. The IP was I believe a blocked user. You decide on the basis of the IP that I am...what...insane? and contact JMilburn - the only admin with whom I have ever had an unhappy exchange, and to whom I cannot apologise enough for what eventually happened as a result of that exchange.

How did we get it so wrong. What was it sparked you to think I was edit warring, because that I think is the key to the whole thing. I took your response the wrong way, you took mine same, but what originally caused you to think that my edit - which was the first time I had edited the article, entirely within policy, and supported by continued discussion on the talkpage - was edit warring? What did I say that led you to that conclusion? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:nasty?
I have had a rather unpleasant confrontation with Elen of the Roads in the past. I'm sorry, but it's really not something I want to be involved with- I'd rather not come in contact with her again. I appreciate that it may sound incredibly dismissive, but I'm sure she feels similarily about me. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

GA review
Please be a little more careful in your GA reviews—I haven't read Gerty Cori in detail, so I don't know whether the article passes the GA criteria, but clearly you shouldn't be promoting articles that proclaim in their first line that the subject is a potato. Ucucha 21:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 July newsletter
We are half-way through our penultimate round, and nothing is yet certain. Pool A, currently led by has ended up the more competitive, with three contestants (,  and ) scoring over 500 points already. Pool B is led by, who has also scored well over 500. The top two from each pool, as well as the next four highest scorers regardless of pool, will make it through to our final eight. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Planning has begun for the 2011 WikiCup, with open discussions concerning scoring and flags for next year's competition. Contributions to those discussions would be appreciated, especially concerning the flags, as next year's signups cannot begin until the flag issue has been resolved. Signups will hopefully open at some point in this round, with discussion about possible changing in the scoring/process opening some time afterwards.

Earlier this round, we said goodbye to, who has bowed out to spend more time on the book he is authoring with his wife. We wish him all the best. In other news, the start of this round also saw some WikiCup awards sent out by. We appreciate his enthusiasm, and contestants are of course welcome to award each other prizes as they see fit, but rest assured that we will be sending out "official" awards at the end of the competition. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 22:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

husband
Good point! Sort of new husband. Lousy thing about English... we dont have a good word for live in boyfriend, when we are really too old to have a "boyfriend" That word seems to indicated young and prior to marriage... or not that serious. Alex and I have known each other for five years and living together for one. We've made noises about getting married, but neither of us are in a hurry. For me, I dont want to risk ruining a good thing! I liked the chocolate guy article. Got a soft spot for people who work from (less than) zero to success.Thelmadatter (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Taichiro Morinaga
Hello! Your submission of Taichiro Morinaga at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Kenneth Kim's Article
Hi I read your thing on the discussion. I think that the actual article might be saying that the patients say he produces the best results in those procedures. Does that make sense? I'm not sure how to say that in the article. If you could help I'd appreciate any improvements you could make. I realize it's an awkward sentence but I can't figure out how to make it better. Ƥ Ɓ ❤  ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ   04:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have my doubts that the man is encyclopedic. Essentially, he's a person that can get the local Koreatown press to write an article about him but no mainstream English language paper has written about him. Does the man advertise in the Korean papers? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC) The only advertising I've seen were for nurses in other news places, such as Korean online classified websites. I am not sure if that is the same thing. Ƥ Ɓ ❤  ʗ Һ ɑ ﾋ   22:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Anna Chapman
Your edit summary that went "restored over-censored details but written in a very tame fashion, no mention of [etc.]" was unacceptable and disruptive and so I have deleted it. Please start respecting BLP rules, which apply equally in edit summaries as they do in the article. Please stop treating this biography as a tabloid rag. Fences &amp;  Windows  04:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "no edit summary per request." You are beginning to try my patience, that edit summary was as WP:POINTy as your previous edit summary was offensive. Of course you should use edit summaries, just don't use them to try to circumvent BLP rules. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
-   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism and sources
"It's kind of original research by adding things that you think are big. There is few or no sources that says 'Buckingham Palace is a big tourist attraction of the UK' or 'Tokyo Tower is a big tourist attraction of Toyko'." Please don't use original research as you were suggesting an AN/I. For one thing, it's totally unnecessary as there are abundant sources about tourism and visitor attractions. There are, for example, thousands of sources that discuss tourism and Buckingham Palace, so your assumption was wide of the mark. There's fewer in English on the Tokyo Tower, but still hundreds. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to desire to fight.

My ANI post was not about those fighting editors on the Israeli article. The post was about how I didn't know there were tourism article and could edit a lot there. However, I probably won't because it gets too close to original research for me. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Category deletion

 * Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_6

Sorry for the delay in responding. (1) I deleted the category because it met the speedy deletion criteria – "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" (WP:CSD). It was a re-run of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_13. (2) Speedy deletion can be done on sight; there is no obligation to wait for seven days or more just because the category is listed at WP:CFD. (3) I thought I did not need to explain my close any further at the discussion, in the light of the clear situation and the number of editors calling for speedy deletion. (4/5) Categories are not kept purely because they are useful in the opinion of one or more editors. Usefulness is merely one factor overall. Merely because two people share a related fact, or combination of related facts (in this case, "celebrities" who have not only been convicted of a criminal offence but have in addition been "incarcerated") is not a sufficient justification for a category. People reading about a red-headed model might be interested in reading about other red-headed models, but we don't categorise in that way. See WP:CAT: "[Categories] should be based on essential, 'defining' features of article subjects." See also Overcategorization. (6) I'm not inclined to relist or reopen the discussion. If you still think in the light of this answer and the discussions that such a category can be justified, then you'll need to make your case at WP:DRV. Regards, BencherliteTalk 10:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments.
Sir I responded to you on my talk page as per your comment. I'd ask you to review User:Hm2k/Hell In A Bucket and please strike your comment about me being uncivil if you agree I was in fact civil throughout after reading the evidence. Currently your admonishment is being used on that page to say someone else agreed that I was uncivil and personally attacking h2mk. Please clarify your position. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Celebrities sentenced to jail
Category:Celebrities sentenced to jail, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup prizes
I appreciate your intent, but please do not take it upon yourself to give out your own WikiCup awards. We (the judges) will send out various awards at the end of the year; you're really challenging the authenticity of those awards, as well as cheapening them somewhat, by sending out your own. You are, of course, more than welcome to send out your own barnstars, or make up your own awards, but please don't send out WikiCup awards- leave that to the judges. J Milburn (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, I completely understand. Rest assured that there will be awards coming later :) J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to change them if you want, but don't feel you have to. I'll put a note in the next newsletter saying that all "official" prizes will come at the end. I'm not telling you off or anything, don't worry :) J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC
I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (events). I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup
I'm on the Dramaout too. Is this still something I could do? Sorry to take so long to reply; I've been busy lately. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

oops
I am violating my monthly wikibreak. I must comply immediately as dramaout starts on the 5th.

🇺🇾 🇩🇪

In the World Cup, it's Uruguay, Netherlands, Germany, Paraguay, and Spain left. Most likely, it will be Germany v. Netherlands with Germany winning. However, how about a Uruguary v. Paraguay match?!

After the lost of Finland in hockey, I won't dare any team anymore! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

wikibreak
I forgot to go on the scheduled monthly wikibreak which is supposed to start at the first of every month. I will now comply. I will return for Drama-out on 5 July. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'll help out with the Dramaout and try to get others involved. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 June newsletter
We're half way through 2010, and the end of the WikiCup is in sight! Round 3 is over, and we're down to our final 16. Our pool winners were (A),  (B, and the round's overall leader),  (C)  and  (D, joint), but, with the scores reset, everything is to play for in our last pooled round. The pools will be up before midnight tonight, and have been selected randomly by J Milburn. This will be the toughest round yet, and so, as ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Though unaffiliated with the WikiCup, July sees the third Great Wikipedia Dramaout- a project with not dissimilar goals to the WikiCup. Everyone is welcome to take part and do their bit to contribute to the encyclopedia itself.

If you're interested in the scores for the last round of the Cup, please take a look at WikiCup/History/2010/Round 3 and WikiCup/History/2010/Full/Round 3. Our thanks go to for compiling these. As was predicted, Group C ended up the "Group of Death", with 670 points required for second place, and, therefore, automatic promotion. This round will probably be even tougher- again, the top two from each of the two groups will make it through, while the twelve remaining participants will compete for four wildcard places- good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17

Embassy of Finland to Australia
I saw your post at Help desk, looked at the article and noticed some other problems. I don't usually edit about Finland, Australia or embassies. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:wikimaths
We have had ties in earlier rounds- while we have had voluntary withdrawals, the actual tiebreak was decided based on participation in the likes of PR, FXC and GAC. J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Concerning this... It's less relevant now, but all too many times someone has contacted me saying "I disagree with your edit as I feel that" when I have made literally several thousand edits in the last few weeks. I got a little sick of it... J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:cup gaps
We had the gaps last year, too- this just allows for a little sorting time, meaning the next round can start on the first. Anything promoted during the gap counts for the next round. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

3rd Great Wikipedia Dramaout
TFOWR 16:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for your invitation to this, but I tried both previous times and failed to resist the drama - I ended up editing in Wikipedia-space both times. I think I just won't bother trying this time. I do appreciate the sentiments behind the project, but it just doesn't suit me. Besides, someone has to help keep the various drama boards running during this difficult time. :) Robofish (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer rights
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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 Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Checkuser and oversighter selection‎
Please don't disrupt the RfC by adding far too many options to be reasonable to the poll. It is an RFC and the poll is FT2's. Don't change the options, if you have a different view you can express your view in the section above. I've removed options 1a and options 5 through 20. Prodego talk  00:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At least one option was put in by HJ Mitchell. It looks like a joke. Some of the others are very serious proposals. There is more than two views. Learning the nuances helps understand the problem. Forcing everyone to wear either black or wear white is not helpful to learn fashion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

partial wikinamespace break
Partial wikibreak for a few days...articles not included, only wikispace, per an editor's advice who happens to be a CU. No AFD will be commented on unless it's an emergency. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New article for Amanda Knox
As you have inquired, we have received permission to expand the redirect page into article "Amanda Knox" and other users now can edit that page. Please beware that many users have expressed an interest in limiting Wikipedia information about Amanda Knox, so the article has been re-nominated in a WP:AfD Article-for-Deletion debate. Although, per policy, Amanda Knox has individual notability (to allow a separate article), on previous occasions an AfD has been decided based on severe resistance to having an article exist, and an admin might delete an article which would, otherwise, have been allowed on a notable subject. You might view various decisions on Wikipedia to be based on avoiding enemies, even though WP:Policies and guidelines seem to allow more freedom than actually occurs, due to intense debates. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for withdrawing your question here. The roles of oversighter and bureaucrat are very different, and it is entirely reasonable for standards and expectations to be different for each. I believe it would be unfair to imply that non-acceptance of an application for one role would in any way relate to acceptance in the other role. It should be noted that criteria for bureaucrats are entirely established by the English Wikipedia community, independent of any other groups. The same is not true of oversighters, who must meet criteria established by the Wikimedia Foundation, as well as the Arbitration Committee, before their candicacy is considered by the community. Risker (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 May newsletter
We are half way through round 3, with a little under a month to go. The current overall leader is, who has 570 points. He leads pool C. Pools A, B and D are led by, and  respectively. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Two of last year's final 8, and, have dropped out of the competition, saying they would rather their place went to someone who will have more time on their hands than them next round. On a related note, a special thank you goes to for his help behind the scenes once again. There is currently a problem with the poster, perhaps caused by the new skin- take a look at this discussion and see if you can help. The competition has continued to tick over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. Good luck to all! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:WikiCup judge
Hey, I guess this probably isn't the most useful answer, but this is not the kind of thing in which I like to get involved. As far as I see it, your original concerns were not the most important- you say yourself you don't disagree with the ban, and so complaining that the person who made it come about is not following a certain procedure reeks of wikilawyering, which is not very becoming. I personally keep my nose out of that sort of thing where I can; there's a lot of aggression and upset to be had, and, if that's not what you're after, it's perhaps best to stick to article writing and those cases where you feel it is worth making a stand. We all came here, first and formost, to write an encyclopedia. Inevitably, there will be unpleasantries, but complaining about the writing style of someone in a case that does not really affect you, especially when said case is closed, is probably not a constructive way to spend your time. I admit I have not looked into this fully, and I admit I'm a little tired, but that's the impression I'm getting here. I hope you still feel happy to continue contributing to Wikipedia, and taking part in the WikiCup. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not full URLs for wiki links
Hi. I've noticed you put full URLs for links within wikipedia. This causes problems like creating extra tabs, moving btwn those who use secure links (link me) and those who don't. It'd be better if you make your links like I changed here — Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I gather you know the answer now, but since I spent ages writing my answer, I'll post it anyway in case you find it useful!
 * I'd use <tt> Finland </tt> for links to articles (or other "current" pages) and <tt> </tt> for diffs. It looks to me as if the padlock icon is automatically displayed by the MediaWiki software. The examples display as:
 * Finland
 * 
 * You can also this this variant (it's called "piping"): <tt> An article about Finland </tt> for links to articles (or other "current" pages) and <tt> A diff from an article about Finland </tt> for diffs; these display as:
 * An article about Finland
 * A diff from an article about Finland
 * Does that help?

Cheers, <b style="color:#000">TFOWR</b>idle vapourings of a mind diseased 20:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

CFM56 Edits
Hi Suomi Finland 2009 -- I wanted to let you know that I have reverted several of your edits to the CFM International CFM56 article. I removed your addition of a source in the middle of the lead. Usually items in the lead do not need to be referenced if the fact is established and cited later in the article, and the fact that the CFM56 is used on many A320s is established later in the article.

Additionally, I reverted your change of the "Variants" subheading to "Models". The "Variants" subheading is a standard category for the Aviation project / aero-engine task force, and can be use synonymously with the word "models". Furthermore, the additional sentence at the beginning of the article wasn't really necessary, and the citation was sloppy (just a link, nothing else).

Currently the article is undergoing a review as a featured article candidate. If you have suggestions or requests for the article, I would appreciate it if you brought them up at the FAC review page or on the article's talk page while this process is on going. Thanks for your interest and understanding! -SidewinderX (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedrabranca/multimediagallery/PhotoofPedraBrancatodaywithvariousfacilities(SingaporeMemorial).html User:Hammersoft

Reply to question
It seems to have a proper source. Not the greatest thing to have in the article but as it appears to have had an affect on his playing it would seem valid to include it. However, there is no source for him suing the board. I would question the inclusion of the next two sentences. There is no source there. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles Express (newspaper)
I noticed the article you recently created, Los Angeles Express (newspaper). Just to let you know that you can't use a Wikipedia article as a reference for another article. Regards, -- Beloved Freak  23:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Hi SF, I normally don't edit that article, at least not in recent memory, so I am certainly uninvolved. And in this case, I saw what seems to be a vandalism edit, replacing a period in the final sentence of a paragraph with an exclamation mark. If you feel this is not vandalism, and there is some good explanation for it, you may be right, but it sure seemed that way to me when it popped up in my watchlist. Crum375 (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I only use rollback for obvious vandalism, and this edit appeared to me to be so, as I explained above. If you don't feel it is, please explain why not. Crum375 (talk) 17:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the cake, SF! (And sorry about the missed gold for Teemu and his gang.) Crum375 (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Template
We will be sending out stuff like that at the end of the competition overall. Fox is good with images and not bad with templates, so he'll probably be the one dealing with that stuff mostly. No doubt we'll have a chat about it at some point. Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:ANI
I am a bit confused by your message. If this is about Scarlet's article, you will see my ANI post was expressing my disapproval of the removal (or "fear") of such tags on Wikipedia for aesthetic or BLP reasons. I agree with you that tags serve a good purpose. SGGH ping! 15:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC) ...right, and why did you post it on my page? I'm barely involved. SGGH ping! 16:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"fan club"
Erm? "Fan club" was sarcasm in this sense, because the person I was referring to had been insulting me. There is no such club.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 00:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:wikicup withdrawn
It'd just mean that they couldn't get through to the next round, meaning that, if they did have enough points to qualify, someone else would get the place. J Milburn (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 April newsletter
Round two is over, and we are down to our final 32. For anyone interested in the final standings (though not arranged by group) this page has been compiled. Congratulations to, our clear overall round winner, and to and , who were solidly second and third respectively. There were a good number of high scorers this round- competition was certainly tough! Round three begins tomorrow, but anything promoted after the end of round two is eligible for points. 16 contestants (eight pool leaders and eight wildcards) will progress to round four in two months- things are really starting to get competitive. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Judge iMatthew has retired from Wikipedia, and we wish him the best. The competition has been ticking over well with minimal need for judge intervention, so thank you to everyone making that possible. A special thank you goes to participants and  for their help in preparing for round three. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute
If you waited until 2011 to tell me that, I would've either wondered what was wrong with you or whether you actually got the joke or not. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everytime you write something on my page, I am fearful that I am being trolled because you have such a way with words. The fact that I have to reread everything a few times also is a testament to your skill. Creating a page at User talk:Suomi Finland 2009/Editnotice should do the trick. You can even create one at your userpage to warn vandals like I did. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Re:Wikicup
Yeah, a new round means 0 points. A lot of people talk about strategy, but I think the majority of people entering are not thinking about it too much- I know I wasn't when I took part last year. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Immunize (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference style
Yes, sorry about that I was busy for a while and haven't been back yet. Reference style is pretty simple, I already began formatting them at Nokian a while ago but haven't completed. The best information can be found at the following


 * For newspapers Template:Cite_news
 * For books Template:Cite_book
 * For scholarly journals Template:Cite journal
 * For websites, primarily online news sources and whitepapers Template:Cite_web
 * For press releases Template:Cite_press_release

All of these have sample templates that I just copy and paste. Then I fill in the parameters as needed and delete the extraneous ones. Each template needs to lead in with

These are all the possible parameters for this template, I've filled in the most important ones. Note the name "espoo". Now, if I want to use the same article to cite a different portion of the Wiki article, all I have to do is add the following:

This will group all citations together into one listing in the reflist, including a letter for each allowing readers to click the letter in the reflist to find which specific sentence it is referencing. It's very helpful if you're using the same references more than once so you don't end up with a huge, messy reflist. Give it a try, I will come along as time allows and try to help too. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can copy and paste the template above. I also forgot something: you can install a gadget in your preferences that alllows you to click a button to insert the type of reference you need. It opens a window where you plug in the various information. You may want to give that a try. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it looks like you actually wrote most of the Nokian article, which is something I probably wouldn't bother attempting anymore. You're a good editor. I can clean up the refs myself but it will probably take some time, working little by little. That particular article has a ton of them and it will take some time to sort them out properly and format them. It's really kind of tedious work but if you want to pass FA you ought to have those done right. I may have some time this weekend if some plans don't pan out, if so I'll pop in and do some work. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of female performers in lesbian porn films


The article List of female performers in lesbian porn films has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Empty list.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Prod
I see you prodded a lesbian film article. I am not interested in this and don't know who to add. In all fairness, you should notify the proper Wikiproject so that any interested editor can either agree with you or fix the article. I created it only for gender equality since the men have a similar article. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I nominate a lot of articles for deletion and notify the creator as a courtesy. I am not in a position to notify other people. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some comments at the article talkpage. -- <u style="font-size:12px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:11px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure is!
Hey, thanks for your message, it was her birthday, Happy Birthday MC!!!<3-- Peter Griffin  •  Talk   11:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Friendly note
Hey there,

On Wikipedia, we try to keep clean, and avoid profanity on user/talk pages. Please take a look at the userpage policy, especially this section. ! We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. I look forward to your further positive contributions. --iBen (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yipee! I am in the 2nd round. Oops, I wasn't supposed to edit quite yet because Finland didn't win the gold medal in men's hockey. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick Beckert
A tag has been placed on Patrick Beckert requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Too bad...
Kiprusoff threatened to not come at all unless he was the number-one goalie and he played terribly in this game. The coach should have called him in one goal sooner - but even then it didn't make a difference. I think maybe the team was a little bit too old also. I am very sad for the hockey fans of Finland, a country I have visited (and love the Finnish people!). In one hour I will start watching my Canadians play. I hope I will not be swearing soon... :) Best of luck four years from now, but you know we will beat you then too! ;) Franamax (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

El Paso-Juarez
''Difficult article because some may consider it a content fork of the two separate city articles. Good luck on resolving this issue. The way to resolve this and still keep the article is to write about cooperative efforts between the two cities and issues about the cities, not an article about the two individual cities. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)''


 * Thanks. I had to deal with a similar issue some months ago. I certainly don't mind people venturing opinions but I am strongly offended when editors use their concerns as a justification for vandalism as is currently happening with the article (i.e. making major changes based on personal opinions rather than reliable sources). The point is that I have established notability and provided sources for the major points so there is no justification for the edit war (and certainly not the unsourced and non-consensus rename). --Mcorazao (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 22:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have run into members of the Green party
I've just reverted the revert that was done to your excellent addition to the Global Warming article, but the one Green Party activist and another user with the same view just keep removing it unhappily. Nsaa (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're unlikely to make the mistake of believing Nsaa, I hope, but for the record: no, I'm not a GP activist William M. Connolley (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nää vihreet on välillä ihan sekasin. Tää yllä oleva on ehdottomasti yks niist. Yritä kestää.85.77.245.167 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yritä kestää. :)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sharona Alperin
A tag has been placed on Sharona Alperin requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  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 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. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @ 01:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Nancy talk  16:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Governance and WP:5P
To answer your question, I don't know. Part of the problem is that in the English-speaking world, we have the common law tradition, instead of the more logical civil law system. In the title are the two main pages for you to reference. See also Governance review, Governance reform, WP:LAW, and User:Walton One/Constitution of Wikipedia, all of which can be confusing to a newebie. I am happy that you have the sisu to deal with this. Bearian (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Doc Quintana (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaker boy GAN
I made the tweak asked. If there's anything else you'd like me to do let me know, since I'm not sure where the original nom went. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your page
I've moved that page you created into your user space, because you've essentially just copied the policy. You can't call it an essay, because it's a policy, one of our most important. See User:Suomi Finland 2009/Verifiability first. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 22:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do not move that page into anyone else's userspace, and please stop the games. V is an important policy. It isn't going to be changed on a whim and we can't have different versions of it existing in project space, because it might confuse people. If you want me to delete that page, let me know. If you have constructive input into the policy, it's very welcome on the talk page. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 17:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thank you. I'll delete the page shortly. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

John Murtha
I think stating "X said this" about Murtha should stand, even if it may not ultimately be the truth as decided by a court of law. Go to the talk page to discuss it further if you disagree, although I'd like to keep the sourcing as high a level as possible. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Breaker boy
I fixed most of your concerns. I don't have access to the offline sources so I couldn't help with expansion. Since it's not actually 'my' article I won't submit it into the Wikicup, just saw that the original author disappeared and it was close to GA. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 19:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, hopefully it can be passed next time you're on. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One sided admin
I would like to know how to complain about a one sided admin. Do you know where I can complain? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Travel
I wish I had the money to travel more! I stay in hostels when I can. Thanks for the invite to Belgium. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your note
Better to strike though rather than delete once someone has commented. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your main user page
I definitely think that we should do whatever it takes to cause as little offence as possible to other editors. :-) Anyway, I really came here to tell you that we have some more concrete proposals on the civility blocking policy - see Administrators' noticeboard/Incivility blocks. It would be great to get your feedback! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But then I am supposed to be on wikibreak so I will start that tomorrow even though I am supposed to start on the first of every month. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I totally misread what you wrote in that thread. Please ignore whatever it was I wrote in response, as I made that reply on about 3:30AM in the morning. I'm a new father :-) I'll reply tomorrow. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 16:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

comment
You're welcome to return your comment to the miscellaneous page, just as I was welcome to remove it. That's how wikipedia works! If you return it, I'll leave it alone as see what others think. I really don't care about what it said, except that it doesn't belong there. (By the way, don't be quick to cry "censorship" when somebody disagrees with you: that's a very old and boring tactic, and it means people won't take you seriously.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/02/palin-wants-rahm-emanuel/?fbid=K9xUidFNQLj#more-88484 is not always a reliable source. It's an editorial page for CNN staffers, so it's reliable in terms of the opinions that whomever is posting holds, but it's not a reliable news source in and of itself. I think that this is where you're confusion is coming from, in this particular instance. Regardless, you and everyone else should always question evn the most reliable sources regularly, by demanding backup to the info presented. If anything is presented as fact, it should be backed up by essentially the same information in alternate sources. — V = I * R (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kansas State Wildcats men's basketball
Please do not make self-referential edits as you do here. It is not important for the coverage of the basketball team that the rival school vandalized the Wikipedia page.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the standard first of the month Wikibreak of a few days.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:unimportant comment
I can't agree more. I myself took part last year, and was eliminated in the second or third round, I believe. However, I was still more than happy with what I achieved. So, congratulations! J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC formality
Pursuant to the regulations, I hereby notify you that I have submitted the Nokian Tyres article for FA consideration.Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notification. Note that talking to yourself may be a sign of a psychiatric illness. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Nokian Tyres
You're obviously committed to this article, so I'm going to do what I can to see that it doesn't lose its GA listing. The point of GA reassessments isn't to delist articles; nobody really wants to do that if they can instead be improved, and this one can. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Suomi Finland 2009! 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 insure 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 Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Victoria Corderi -

Talkback

 * You also need to build consensus before incorrectly removing notablity. You have not done this.  Just because you want to stop vandalism on an article does not mean deletion, otherwise we would have deleted Barack Obama, ANI and AN a long time ago.  Chill.  You do not have consensus nor precedence on your side. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #900;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

RFK schools
Sorry. I already have a bunch of stuff on my plate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Leona Lewis/WP:BLP
Hi Suomi Finland, I'm not stalking your edits, but was checking your recent contributions to see if you've added further to a discussion we were having earlier. I noticed the discussion you started at Talk:Leona Lewis. Do you think you could remove your use of the word "psycho"? Apart from being quite offensive to people with mental health problems, it's actually a WP:BLP issue since you are talking about a living person. Even for convicted criminals (which that man is not), we need to be particularly mindful of WP:NPOV and WP:V. WP:BLPTALK discusses the application of the policy beyond the mainspace.-- Beloved Freak  22:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * changed. Psycho is no longer there.  I changed it to bad man.  That's one of the first English words I learned.  "You are a good boy"  "He is a bad man"  I used to get confused and called "Batman" "Bad man" Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, thanks. The point is, though, we shouldn't really be giving those kinds of opinions about people. We're not here to discuss what we think of people, just what reliable sources say about them. You wouldn't do it in an article, and talkpages shouldn't be any different. You could have just said "the man". Anyway, lecture over. :) -- Beloved Freak  22:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)



Discussion
Hey Suomi, Iv'e opened up a new discussion here and would appreciate your opinion and input. Thanks!-- Peter Griffin  &bull;  Talk   04:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nokian
Hei, Regarding this sentence in Nokian Tyres:

"The project was put on hold in early 2009 by mutual agreement and will not be reinstated until late 2010 at the earliest."

It's sourced to an annual report from 2008 but the reference itself is just a sentence saying that without any details about the actual annual report. Is it available online or do you have a print version someplace so I can create a true reference? &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I can track it down tonight. If not, I'll pull it out, ok? Nokian makes good tires. I wanted to get a set for my car seven or so years ago but they were hard to find around here at the time. You have to go to independent tire shops or else special order because most tire shops here are controlled by Firestone or Goodyear and Sears doesn't carry them either. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe when Nokian is cleaned up we could work on Salora Oy. &lt;&gt;Multi‑Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Roadmap?

 * I'm fine with your vote. In fact, I think both should be kept, and I've gone on record saying that about both articles. I voted for Speedy close based on the history that's been ongoing with this user, and no reason other than that. However, I encourage you to reach out to him all you like. Also, my signature actually links to four different sections of my userspace (User page, talk, contributions, autograph book), but I probably should change it, as it is a bit confusing... :) —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:WikiCup questions
Hey. I don't mind answering your questions, so don't feel bad about posting them :) Regarding your first question, yes, you simply add the articles you have worked on to WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/Suomi Finland 2009, in the format explained here. You may find further notes of interest on the rules page. As for what can actually get you points, you are correct that mere article creation or improvement will not. Instead, an article must be recognised as good or featured, or appear on the main page as part of the did you know or in the news sections. Did you know is the easiest of these, and I see you've already had one in your time on Wikipedia, so you know what you're doing there. As for how much you have to have done to claim the points- it has to be a "significant" amount this year. There's no line in the sand, but just be reasonable and don't abuse the system and you should be fine :) Does that clear things up a little? J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Last year's competition included points for any edits in the article space or portal space, but the competition has changed tone a little this year. Discussion for how things will work next year won't be starting until we are well into this competition, but it could very easily change tone again. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page
Erm... thanks?  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Test on your own talk page next time. I tried reverting you, but you'd already done it. -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 00:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to undo it as quickly as humanly possible. I couldn't test it because I know that my counter is a manual counter, not an automated one.  Even with Falcon eyes, how did you see it so quickly?  Is there a Wikipedia version of the NCTb or KGB? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, all of those counters are manual, and it was probably Huggle.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, just checked. He's on the Huggle Whitelist. It was luck that I refreshed in time to see it. There is no Secret Wikipedia Secret Police that is kept a secret. We never had this conversation. (puts on sunglasses and neuralyses) -- Thejadefalcon <sup style="color:#03C03C;">Sing your song <sub style="color:#00A550;">The bird's seeds 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nokian Tyres GA review
I have nominated the article for community reassessment as I believe that the article does not meet the GA criteria. My concerns are at Good article reassessment/Nokian Tyres/1. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address your comments to the reassessment page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have responded at the reassessment page, which is where you should respond. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cherry pick statistics
Hello. I presume that Cube lurker's clarification clears up your incorrect assumption ? To avoid looking this silly in the future, you may wish to check your facts (or at least the supplied links) prior to making accusations that others have engaged in bad-faith practices such as cherry picking statistics. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing this out, which I've corrected. That's the trouble with a huge mess which is why I proposed a clarity period. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your edits
Please don't make unfounded edits to the WP:Editing restrictions. As you aren't an admin, you can not impose or remove community sanctions. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 20:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry but your addition conflicts with others. I'll let it go though. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what my restriction says. I don't know where you're coming up with everywhere, I only said Wikipedia/talk space. --<small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;"><big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  flagged revs now!  // 20:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

2010
To all of those who didn't like an edit that I made or crossed wires with me, sorry and let's start a new decade fresh! Happy New Year! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Illegals Program
You may wish to look at my comment at Talk:Illegals Program and respond if you wish. The bottom line is that I am proposing that the mug shots, which are now in the article twice, only be in the article once, although some may feel they should not be there at all. I am also posting this notice at User talk:KimChee. Neutron (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI
If you're going to gripe about something I wrote, you could at least gripe about what I actually wrote. Your interpretation of what I wrote was totally off the mark. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, will correct. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 September newsletter
We are half-way through our final round, entering the home straight. leads at the time of writing with 1180 points, immediately followed by with 1175 points. closely follows in third place with 1100 points. For those who are interested, data about the finalists has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/finalists, while a list of content submitted by all WikiCup contestants prior to this round has been compiled at WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions. As ever, anything contestants worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Despite controversy, the WikiCup remains open. Signups for next year's competition are more than welcome, and suggestions for how next year's competition will work are appreciated at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. More general comments and discussions should be directed at the WikiCup talk page. One month remains in the 2010 WikiCup, after which we will know our champion. Good luck everyone! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC on vandalism sandboxes
As someone who previously participated in the discussion to adopt policy verbiage that is being used as a rationale to delete "vandalism sandboxes", your input would be appreciated on the matter: Wikipedia talk:User pages. Gigs (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

{[Diego's Hair Salon]}
Just wanted to let you know the article you nominated for GA status is on hold. Any changes must be made before September 27 to be considered for the review. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi There, Didn't hear from you, so I thought that you wouldn't be making any changes. I don't think you understand that I recommended a major expansion of the article for GA status. What you added is a very minor insert. If you do make anymore changes before the 27th, let me know and I will take a look. However, I doubt it will pass. I would take a month or two to fix up the article, and then renominate it. Good luck. Ryderofpelham123 (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Diego's Hair Salon
Hi. I note you've left some comments on the GA Review. Ryderofpelham123 has made clear that the review is now closed. You may, however, nominate the article again. There are differences of opinion as to if the article meets GA criteria. As you have made some amendments to the article in line with recommendations made during the review, a second nomination may prove to be more successful. Good luck!  SilkTork  *YES! 08:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Entertainers killed in airplane crashes
Category:Entertainers killed in airplane crashes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:congrats
Thanks, I really appreciate that :) J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Goodbye, Wikicup
It's been great to have you- I hope to see you again next year? J Milburn (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal broil
I choose to not explain the details of why I chose this name - but I'll give you the clue that it's no accident that "royal" & "broil" rhyme.  Royal broil  01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for GBU-53/B
Hello, your nomination of GBU-53/B at DYK was reviewed and comments provided. Please hurry, it is the oldest nomination on the page!--NortyNort (Holla) 12:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Lehtonen
Bishop Samuel Lehtonen of the Finnish Lutheran Church died on August 20, 2010. He was bishop of the Lutheran Diocese of Helsinki. This is in the recent deaths for August 20. His obituary is in Finnish. If I was able locate an English language news bulletin I might had been able to start the article but I can't find any. Thanks-RFD (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)