User talk:Velivieras

Hey, i've noticed you reverted my Edits on the Page: Finns, please, i ask you to not revert my Edits on that Page, you may think it's not, but, those Informations are Crucial for enrich the Content of that Page, some People don't even know Finland is a Bilingual country, and those Informations would be Useful for someone to Travel to or Work in the Country, even why everybody knows if you'd Work in another country, it's crucial for you to Know to speak the languages spoken in that Country, even if the country is a multilingual country, such as Canada, for Example, you'd have to Learn all the Official languages of that Country, for Example, if you Travel to Switzerland, you'd have to Learn even less spoken languages in the Country, such as Italian or Romansh, for Example, not to mention that's Crucial for someone to understand the Finnish culture, travel there and even work in the country, even because there are people who may not know much of the country and go there to travel or work, and everyone knows that if you go to another country for whatever reason, you need to know to speak the language that is spoken in there, even if it is a multilingual country such as Switzerland, Ireland, Finland and Canada, you need to learn all the official languages that are spoken in the country, Best regards, WhiteGuy1850 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC) If you continue to revert my Edits to Finns, i'd have to ask for Admins to Block you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

May 2017
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kvenland. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. ''A map based on a map with a guesstimate of where "Quaenland" was and a map showing more recent expansion of Finns, combined to make it look as if the two belong together, is original research/synthesis of sources. '' - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I only reversed your POV deletes that didn't have any sources backing them up. And I will do it again if you cannot provide sources. You have to proof your edits with sources when you are deleting material from Wikipedia, not the other way around. --Velivieras (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed unsourced material, in full accordance with the rules, while you're adding unsourcedd/OR/synth material, thereby violating the rules (or to quote WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (my emphasis). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Kvenland, you may be blocked from editing. It is up to you to provide sources, since you're adding material (see WP:BURDEN), not me. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Kvenland. What part of "original research/synthesis of sources: combining data from different time periods and presenting it as if the two belong together" was it that you didn't understand? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 15:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The map has sources and I will now add sources for your other delete. Try to relax. I will do the work for you. --Velivieras (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well you are a fast one. Ok, now we will start a discussion where you can provide your opinion against sources. --Velivieras (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you don't want to understand what I'm saying, or if you simply can't understand what I'm saying: you can not combine data from vastly different time periods in one and the same map and present it as if it all belongs together! Regardless of how many sources each of the different parts of the map has, it's the combination of it all that is OR/synth, and not allowed. If a reliable source existed, explicitly saying that northern Scandinavia was populated by Finns in 814AD, the year given on the map guessing where Quaenland was, then it would be allowed. But there is no such source. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can provide your opinion in the discussion.--Velivieras (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I stronly suggest you read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (sample quote from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", again my emphasis; which disallows the map since it implies that Finns lived around the northern part of the Gulf of Bothnia in 814AD, the year given in the map the name comes from). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion, please provide your input. I have also noticed this map in Wikipedia that does not have any sources included and that is historically false concerning Finland. I hope you will support me when I start to delete the map from articles on the same bases you claimed before.
 * I have posted a comment on Talk:Kvenland, but have no interest whatsoever in the other map, and will neither fight you nor support you. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In any case I will refer to this debate in that context also. --Velivieras (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Bilingual Finland
Since Finland is bilingual terms should be in Finnish and Swedish. --Per W (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn`t make sense and like I said it is not necessary. It doesn`t give any useful information for the English language reader what so ever and if you start follow that logic you would have quite a job in all articles in all countries that have more than one official language. That seems quite difficult. I will now undo your add-on and if you like to continue this conversation we can do it on the discussion page of the article. --Velivieras (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You're being a little immature, Have you noticed that all the nations that live in multilingual countries, such as the Belgians, for example, have all the languages spoken in the country where they live in the language section spoken by the people themselves except the Finns ? WhiteGuy1850 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about ethnic group. In Belgium two biggest ethnic groups are Walloons and Flemish people. Try to get your facts straight and please educate yourself. I approached administrators for your disrubtive behavior. Velivieras (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Pls stop edit warring,
Pls stop edit warring, you are deliberate confusing two separate issues, the section titled Ethnonym is about how Slavs got their name, read the first sentence, "The Slavic autonym is reconstructed in Proto-Slavic as *Slověninъ, plural *Slověne." not about how the word Slavery came about in the west. I will request that you are blocked because you are inserting content clearly not related to the section. --E-960 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Btw, two other editors in the talk page discussion agree that this is not the article to discuss the origins of the word Slavery. --E-960 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Slavs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

December 2017
Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Finland has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. &#8209; &#8209; Gareth Griffith&#8209;Jones&#160;The Welsh Buzzard &#8209; &#8209; 10:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you serious that, according to you, one of the biggest archeological find in Nordics in last decades should not be mentioned because leading scientist can`t be sure about issues that happened 120,000-130,000 years ago? Wolf Cave is mentioned in every Encyclopedia and in every history book after it was found. You need to have much better arguments than you represented so far. --Velivieras (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finnish tribes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Finnish_tribes check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Finnish_tribes?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Tavastia
Hello. Just so we don't have to go through this again: the Latin name Tavastia, which was first documented in 1303 AD, is derived from the Old Norse name Tafæistaland (which was first documented ~300 years before the first appearance of the Latin name, and long before the Swedish crusades...), where TafæistR is a Scandinavian personal name. A name that then became Tafvastland/Tavastland when Old Norse split into Swedish, Danish and Norwegian. See "Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland", pages 416-421. Cheers, - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you for your message. Yes, the English term "Tavastia" comes from Latin and this is the case with this article. No other languages are necessary in the introduction of the article. One can add the information to the text later in the article if necessary.
 * Where the word Tavastia has come to old norse is a matter of debate. As you well know the "Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland" describes many theories for the word Tavastia and it also states that the name Tafeistr comes from the name Tavastia, not the other way around. Also it has to be noted, that Tafæistr is not a scandinavian name, but describes a person from Tavastia. I would maybe accept the Old Norse to the Article, but not Swedish because it is relatively young language and nothing to do with this question. Have a good new year and let us continue this debate next year if necessary.Velivieras (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed the Swedish name (one of the two official languages of Finland, making Tavastland an official name for the province...), but kept the Russian name (which has no legal standing in Finland), why? - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Official languages of Finland doesn`t concern English Wikipedia. I planned to remove also the Russian name, but decided to think it little bit longer. The reason is that the Russian name Yem or Yam (comes from the Finnish word Häme) of Tavastians is used in Novgorodian chronicles and to a random reader this information could be useful. After all, almost all of the early mentions of Tavastians are in Novgorodian chronicles describing their many wars against them. This being said, this information could also be moved from the introduction to other part of the article with other languages. Velivieras (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does concern the English language Wikipedia, as can be seen in a very large number of other articles, where the name is given in all languages that are official there. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 16:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * English Wikipedia is English and the name Tavastia in that exact form comes to English from Latin, simple as that. Other languages are arbitary. The English name Tavastia has nothing to do with much younger Swedish or Old Norse, eventough you tried to lie about that fact earlier. By the way Finland is also mentioned in the runestones, but no one argues that the name comes from Old Norse. So why old Norse or Swedish names should be in the article? Could you also tell me, why the Swedish name should be in the English Karelia (Historical province)-article? Velivieras (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "The English name Tavastia has nothing to do with much younger Swedish or Old Norse"? The Old Norse/Swedish name predates the Latin name that derives from it by at least 300 years, and the Swedish name belongs in the article since Karelia was a Swedish province until 1809 (the political entity now known as Finland wasn't created until after the eastern provinces were ceded to Russia in 1809...). It's obvious from your edits that you want to rewrite history, but it's just not going to happen... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can say the same about you. This is English Wikipedia, not Swedish one, and only the English names and their history apply. Leave your POV to Swedish Wikipedia.
 * What is your source for the fact that the Latin name comes from Old Norse? This is new information. The research indicates (e.g. Fibula, Fabula, Fact: The Viking Age in Finland has a pretty good summary about that) that the Latin and Old Norse name for Tavastia comes from the same older source, which hasn`t still been finally resolved. Tavastia was inhabitet by Finns hundreds of years before the Old Norse language was first time even spoken. Of course the name can be even older, than the 4th Century movement of Finnish tribes to the inland via Kokemäenjoki. Indicating that Swedish and Old Norse are the same language is just uncivilized.
 * Just to make historical facts for you clear: greater part of Karelia, as we are now speaking of it, was under somekind of Swedish rule 211 years, de facto even less. So you are suggesting that we start to add the languages to the introducions of articles based on this logic? This doesn`t hold. Velivieras (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You're the one engaging in POV editing, not me. And no, the book (I have it, so it's easy for me to check) does not say, or in any way indicate, that the Latin name comes "from the same source" independendent of the Old Norse/Swedish name for Tavastia. What it says is that the Scandinavian name for the people of Tavastia (tafæistr/tavast), and name for that area, Tafæistrland/Tavastland, seem to date to the seventh century AD, and possibly even earlier. To that we can add that the Latin language arrived in what is now Finland with the Swedes, along with Christianity, so the Scandinavian name would have been well known by everyone who knew Latin and had a reason to write about Tavastia. The Latin name, Tavastia, also didn't appear until after what is now Finland had been conquered by Sweden, and is first documented in Finland. So no, there is absolutely nothing that supports your own personal theory about it having been created "independent of the Swedish name" by someone who had never even heard of the Scandinavian name for that area "Tafæistaland/Tavastland". And even if it was it would still be based on a Scandinavian name, since the name for the people, "tavast", that the Latin name without doubt is based on, is also Scandinavian... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I can add that "Fibula, Fabula, Fact" states (on page 429) that "The name Tavastland is no borrowing at all but together with the name Finland it testifies to continuing Scandinavian–Finnish contact throughout the Late Iron Age", i.e. that "Tavastland" is a Scandinavian name, not borrowed from anywhere... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Again you are fabricating theories based on nothing. You even have the book that gives you good information on the issue at hand, but you still try to transform the scientific facts to your Swedish POV. Earlier you have even shown your readiness to lie to support your political views.
 * You can e.g. see on the page 418-421 of "The Viking Age in Finland" that the oldest and still prominent theories for the name Tavastia include the Finnish words Tausta (Background), Tavastaa (go hunting) and mans name Tapainen. You can also see on the page 420 that the name Tavastia is from Latin. The name in any case is totally independent from the Swedish name. Even the theory about Laggard Estonian (Aistaz/Taf) has nothing to do with much younger Swedish language.
 * The theories also indicate that there is a good possibility that the word comes to Latin and to Old Norse from same independent source. Latin is old language, much much older than Germanic Old Norse language. From the runestone Gs 13 we can determine that the place name similiar to Tavastia was in use in the beginning of 11th Century. This means that the Old Norse speakers would have had to invent the place name almost right away when the whole language was formed in 9th Century. This is highly dubious.
 * Your claim that Latin language arrived to Finland with the Swedes (big part of them were in fact German, also Danes and English were involved) is good example of your uninformed POV. Catholic Church arrived to South-West Finland at the latest in the 11th Century. Long before Sweden even existed. Danes and Germans were also active in spreading Christianity to Finland before the Swedes. For your knowledge, the Latin name for Tavastia (Tabast) was first documented in Tabula Rogeriana in 1154. This is a long time before Catholic Church made crusades to Finland with the Help of Swedish kings and "people from the islands" like the popes letter tells us.
 * Your quote from the page 429: "The name Tavastland is no borrowing at all but together with the name Finland it testifies to continuing Scandinavian–Finnish contact throughout the Late Iron Age" means like it says, that there were contacts, wether the name is from Finnic or from some other source. Your POV interpretation doesn`t surprise me.Velivieras (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Utter BS, as can be expected from you. The book does NOT say what you claim it says, it's just your own POV interpretation of it (the Swedish language is a direct continuation of the Old Norse language, exactly the same way that modern-day Finnish is a direct continuation of Old Finnish, with no exact date for when one ends and the other starts...), just like your endlessly repeated claims in articles here about there having been no Swedes in Finland before the Swedish crusades (suggested reading: Swedes (Germanic tribe), and countless mentions in books about early Scandinavian presence in Finland, and the dual origin of Finns...). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming anything, I am simply refering you the results of linguistics and archeology from one volume, which is apparently on your disposal also. I can write the parts concerned also here if you like? I am sorry that they are not what you hope they would be. You are, in the other hand, fabricating claims and even lying. I`m still waiting for your academic sources (after 19-20th Century nationalism era) that states that there were Swedes in Finland before the Crusade era. This "dual origin theory" is also new and I would like to hear more of it. There were Indo-Europeans, Sami and scattered Finnic communities in the area before Finns started first time to move to the area in 1200-800 BC from the South, but Swedes?
 * As a compromise, I will next make a new paragaph to the Tavastia-article about the etymology of the word with good academic sources and I hope you will not intervene. I also hope that you will take your stand in the Karelia article about the reasons why the Swedish langauge version of the name should be mentioned in the introduction.Velivieras (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you do write that you can forget claiming that Tavast/Tavastland derives from Finnish "taustamaa" or "tavastaa", since, as is clearly stated in "Fibula, Fabula, Fact" (on page 418), the Finnish word tausta was first documented in 1745, and even if it did exist during the Viking age it would have been tayusta then, and couldn't possibly have become tafæista in Old Norse, and tavastaa is, as is also stated on the same page, a hypothetical/invented word, created to "explain" tavast, not a real word. There is also, again according to the same page, no support for the claim that tavast derives from Tapainen, which is why the book clearly states that tavast/Tavastland was not borrowed from Finnish, but is derived from the Old Norse word/name tafæista... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 18:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "ard Tabast" in "Tabula Rogeriana" is not the same name as "Tavastia", the common name for Tavastland in Latin (and English), it would probably have been based on "Tafæista" though (just like Tavastia), a name that was in common use among Scandinavians (King Roger of Sicily was of Norman, i.e. Scandinavian, descent, and had large numbers of Scandinavian warriors in his army...) already before al-Idrisi's time. The only sources for "Tabast" being Tavastia are blogs and similar, btw, based on a transliteration of the Arabic text on an image of a map, not from Latin text in a book, making the claim that it was a Latin name for Tavastia highly dubious... - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 20:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest you inform yourself with the linguistical research and provide sources and not to try do it by yourself. That is POV. It really doesn`t matter when a word is first time written down. The theories about Tausta, Tavastaa, Tapainen and many other words have been in the discussion for over a hundred years and they will also be in the future. This doesn`t in any way affect the fact that the word Tavastia comes from Latin. Tabast is not Arabic, it is Latin translation.
 * "the book clearly states that tavast/Tavastland was not borrowed from Finnish, but is derived from the Old Norse word/name tafæista...". You are lying again. In Johan Schalin`s view the ethnonym Tavast might be the basis of the Old Norse word Tafæistr, but he doesn`t make a definitive conclusion what is the history of the word itself. Velivieras (talk) 09:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not lying (you should be very careful with accusations like that...), the one who isn't telling the truth is you, possibly because of not knowing enough English to understand what the book says. And what the book says is that "tavast"/"Tavastland" was NOT borrowed from Finnish/Finnic, but derived from "tafæist", the Old East Norse name for the (non-Sami) Finnic people living in what was later known as "Häme"/"Tavastland" (the book also says that "tafæist" is a compound Scandinavian word, meaning "laggard" (taf) "Estonian" ("æistR"), Estonian since the Scandinavians at that time (the word is, according to the book, believed to be from the 7thC or even earlier, that is well before the Viking Age) had lots of experience with Estonians (as can be seen from archaeological evidence in Estonia showing a continuous Scandinavian population on the Estonian coast for more than 2,000 years, up to modern times, i.e. Estonian Swedes), and saw the Estonians and the Finns as the same people, but separate from the Sami (who at that time also lived in what was later known as "Häme"/"Tavastland"). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 11:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Treasure of Halikko
Hello, Velivieras,

Thank you for creating Treasure of Halikko.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Thanks for creating this article"

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Abishe (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input. I improve the article when I have more sources at my disposal. Velivieras (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Northern Crusades
Hello, What is your justification for deleting excerpt from the most recent and prestigious Northern Crusades academic research? I do not see anything in the wiki article contradicting that research, but if I am wrong, please take time to edit the wiki to accommodate the facts instead of deleting facts to accommodate the wiki. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.192.49.151 (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2017 Turku attack, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Concerning your edits to the article “Espoo”
Hello, Velivieras,

It has come to my knowledge that you have reverted some of the edits I have made into the article Espoo, particularly concerning extracts in the introduction and the history section.

To begin with, everything I have written can be found in the given sources, if you look through them. And contrary to what you claimed—yes, it is known when the Swedish first migrated to present-day Espoo. All the sources, including the one that was cited, indicate that this most likely did happen during the 13th century.

The introduction of the article should be short and informative, also to those, who are unfamiliar with Finnish history. This is the very reason why I added short clarification to Sweden ceding Finland to the Russian Empire, et cetera. So, I need to beg you to forgive me if I have made edits that have altered your preferred version of the article. However, the part about Finnic people living in Espoo is quite irrelevant to the history-at-large, for it was, indeed, the Swedish, not the Finns, who established Espoo as a parish sometime in the 15th century. Besides, it is already quite evident people were living there before the colonization because it is explicitly stated in the previous sentence. Also, times before the 13th century are not considered to be a part of the Medieval Period in Finland, even though it is so in the rest of Europe.

Furthermore, I have noticed you deleted a short inclusion about connections to the east in the history section, whose purpose was to make the text more coherent, and I have to admit I can't quite follow your train of thought there. If the archaeological evidence shows that there were Savono-Karelian artefacts in Espoo during the era, it obviously means there was some kind of connection to the east (these artefacts didn't just pop out of the earth, so to say). Could you explain the motivation behind this edit?

Lastly, concerning English grammar—punctuation, namely—I would kindly ask to stop reverting my revisions to the text body. It is absolutely vital that all articles in the English Wikipedia should follow correct orthography, and I see no reason for your altering grammatically correct sentences into ones that aren't. Again, I have no interest in engaging myself in an edit war with another member of the Wikimedia Community, and I truly appreciate your efforts in making the article better.

With kind regards, Kalapulla123 (talk) 19:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Kalapulla123 and thank your for you message and for initating the discussion. I have to point out that you reverted my edits first among your more extensive editing.


 * The information in the website of Espoo is wrong and I have contacted them to get it straight. It is not known when the Swedes came to the relatively unintresting area of Espoo. I have relatively wide knowledge of this period and if you have sources of this, I am happy to see them. The Danish Itinerarium (Tanskalainen itineraario in Finnish Wiki) can be seen to describe the phase of the Swedish colonisation in 1241 or in the end of the Century. Finnish place names start after Hanko which indicates that Swedes (or Danes) were not in Uusimaa in that time. You have to also take into account that places to west from Espoo were colonised by Swedes not earlier than in 14th Century. Karjaa was founded c. 1326, Kirkkonummi c. 1330, Inkoo c. 1337 and Lohja c. 1382. As we well know, Espoo was subdivision of Kirkkonummi congregation until 1486–1487 and it was first time mentioned as late as in 1380.


 * I agree that the introduction should be informative but also short as possible. After your edits it mentioned the Stone Age and then went straight to Medieval Ages. That lacks 9000 years of history. It is not much better now, but maybe a little.


 * I don`t see why the history of Finnic people in Uusimaa or in Espoo would be more or less irrevelant than any other history. You are right that the the 13th Century is counted as Iron Age in Finland. If you have any ideas to improve the situation, please do. Velivieras (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answers; this has clarified many things. However, before we get any deeper into the matter, I believe I need to apologize to you if I have appeared hostile before, as I, myself, understand that I might have appeared so. I feel this might be an interesting—and essential—discussion to have. If I may suggest, could we move this discussion into a Finnish-language platform? Since Finnish is a mother tongue for both of us—if I so may presume—it might be easier and faster to communicate using a language we both are fluent in. To put it short, the article Espoo is a small project of mine I'm only starting, and I'd be thrilled to be able to make it better. Would you care to join me in my Finnish discussion page? Kalapulla123 (talk) 09:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Population in Sweden
The numbers you gave for people with foreign background seem to be vastly inflated. This SCB table gives the number as 2,752,572. Could you explain where you found the number 3,557,912? Sjö (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * In additon, it says both parents foreign born, not at least one. Why did you revert me removing an excess space (that you added) and overlinks as well as fixing the incorrect definition? TylerBurden (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the correct number, I am also not sure how you arrived at the conclusion of over three and a half million. Would love to hear an explanation for this. TylerBurden (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now the link to the source is correct. My apologies that the earlier source was to wrong data table. Anyhow, the numbers are correct. Velivieras (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And to be more precise, you are talking about number of "persons who are foreign born, or born in Sweden with foreign born parents." The bigger number includes, in addition to these, the 805 000 people who has at least one parent born abroad. And this is explained in the text every time the number is used. Velivieras (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, still no idea why you are restoring the excess space and overlinks though. TylerBurden (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sory about that, you can blame my lack of user skills. Please restore it if you will. Velivieras (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Done already, thanks for updating the source. TylerBurden (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)