Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 23 November 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Jaakko Sivonen, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —A.S. Damick 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: 5.5 % speak Swedish in Finland

No you have understood the intention of my reverts quite wrong. I reverted them because when you present statistical data you, in a mathematical sence and therefor as a rule of statistics, have to keep all data at the same precision in case it is data that eliminates the other data. You can't eg. say. 92,76 % of the people in some group wear a hat and 9% don't.

So if you want to change 6% to 5,5 you also have to change 92% to the correct value at the precision of one decimal.

Also when it comes to such large figures it is usually customary to keep to a zero decimal precision, but this is neither what i primarily objected to.

Have a nice day

Gillis 15:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Finnish People

Misplaced Pages is meant to be a neutral encyclopedia. Based on your history of edits, you seem to use it for a personal crusade against everything Swedish. You have to conform to NPOV and stop inserting bold claims without sources. If you disagree with what other people write, that's fine. In that case, use the talk page to argue your case and use sources to back up the claims you make. To accuse others of vandalism, as you did to Epf, just because you don't agree with their views is not in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. JdeJ 11:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Epf was trying to bring in his own opinions of Finnish origin, claiming that we are not the original people of Finland. I would say that that is non-NPOV and as such, vandalism. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have taken to an unpleasant tactic of accusing anyone who disagrees with you of vandalism. You accused Epf when he disagreed with you. What he in fact did was to change a paragraph lacking any sources to another one that was backed up with sources. Regardless of whether you disagree with him or not, you cannot possibly call that vandalism. In the past few days, you have issued warnings of vandalism to a number of users. What these users have done is to restore the information box at Finnish people to the template used in every other article on different peoples. Let me be very clear here, editing out your own edits so that the information box looks as it previously did is not vandalism. Please try to engage in discussions in a constructive way in the future and argue for your views on the talk pages. JdeJ 08:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Final warning

One more personal attack, or an abusive edit summary will result in a report which will likely lead to a block. Please reconsider your attitude. --Irpen 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have to call people idiots if they would read the arguments, but no: you just reverted without any counter-argument and without any knowledge of Finnish history. That is called vandalism and consider this your final warning. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for persistant incivility. See:--MONGO 20:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image

Sinä kun näistä asioista olet sotvannut niin katso mitä Russophobiassa on.--Pudeo (Talk) 11:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Kiitos, poistin kuvan. --Jaakko Sivonen 11:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not considered polite to use foreign languages in this Anglophone project. Please translate or you will be reported. --Ghirla 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, says Mr. who has several cyrillic Russian messages in his talk page. :) Anyway, I was just saying that he might want to check it out as he has valid source and point for that image. I'm just tired of edit warring so I don't bother really much.. --Pudeo (Talk) 14:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:TE

Jaakko, I see that you engage in tendentious editing. Please reconsider. This edit is particularly disturbing. Could you explain why you insist on adding Vyborg Castle to Category:History of Finland, when it is already part of Category:Medieval Finland? It is easy to see that the latter category is part of the former; and WP:CAT deprecates double categorization. As for the rest of your edits, they are in violation of WP:NC. There have been many discussions on naming issues. You may want to check Talk:Gdansk/Vote to get some idea of it. The consensus is to use, in historical contexts, those names that were official at the period. For instance, we don't say that Kant lived in Kaliningrad. To talk about the Siege of Saint Petersburg during WWII is also misleading. If the castle was built by the Swedes and was used by the Swedish government, its name should be rendered in Swedish. Another option is to use Russian, because the castle has been part of Russia during the last three centuries. I don't see any basis for forcing Misplaced Pages to prefer Finnish spellings there. If you don't reconsider you activities, more blocks may ensue. Take care, Ghirla 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

About the category - OK. About Finnish/Swedish names: it is the policy to use the name of the city's majority's language (cities grew around all castles mentioned) which was Finnish. I at least demand that both names be used: Turku/Åbo etc.. It doesn't matter that it was built on the orders of Swedish crown: the Isthmus' population was Finnish. You on the other hand insist calling the Grand Duchy of Finland a puppet state and Russian-controlled. It had major privileges and autonomy compared to other areas in the Russian Empire. --Jaakko Sivonen 12:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't insist on calling a part of the Russian Empire its puppet state, because its status is evident without my opinions. As for your assertion that "it is the policy to use the name of the city's majority's language" (we talk about Middle Ages here), I would appreciate a detailed quotation and link to the policy you have in mind. Thanks, Ghirla 13:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vaasa has a Finnish speaking majority, thus it's primary name in en.wiki is the Finnish form Vaasa, not the Swedish Vasa. Vaasa is also used in the city's history part in the article in the time of the Swedish rule in Finland. And as you can see the same applies to Turku (look at history). --Jaakko Sivonen 14:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Russophobia

My dear friend AN/I is not the place to tattle. First of all if you believe the image is dubious the first place to go is the talk page of the article and explain why you think, then modify the caption with something like this image is believed to be forged(ref). Partisan blanking IS vandalism. Please re WP:VAND. Oh and btw I am not a nationalist. --Kuban Cossack 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you can see it in the talk page - and I gave the source initially also. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That is not the correct way to approach wikipedia, please stop edit warring promprtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuban kazak (talk • contribs)

Relax

I know little about the content issues you are dealing with, but you just came off a block and are now engaging in issues that are obviously heated for you and others. I have been requested to ask you to calm down please and try to not let the arguments get too heated. If you remain civil, and ensure your arguments are backed up by reliable references, then no one will be able to argue with you. Thanks.--MONGO 14:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

What's this nonsense

Crucial, basic information like this must be presented right in the beginning, in the box. I don't want people to think the situation like it is in Wales where the invader's language is the bigger

I'd like to know why you think that English is dominant in Wales because it is an invaders language. This displays a beathtaking lack of knowledge of Welsh history. Please don't make incorrect statements like this. English became the dominant language in Wales less than 100 years ago, without anyone forcing the change on the population. To express it in terms of invaders is to show that you know all about the subject. Alun 18:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit that I do not know that much about Welsh history, but the point is that English was not the original language of the Welsh people but nowadays it is dominant. I was comparing this to Finland where the people were able to keep their native language dominant. Main point is that the English were initially invaders and the Welsh didn't speak English before the English arrived and most probably wouldn't speak nowadays if they would not have arrived when they did. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• English were initially invaders

No they weren't. This is the whole point. The Normans were the invaders and they spoke French. The fact that Welsh people speak English and not French shows that they did not take up the language of the invaders. Welsh remained the dominant language in Wales for another 850 years. Welsh people started to speak English for social reasons not political/racial or ethnic ones. Alun 05:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours

I have blocked you 24 hours, as described on Talk:Treaty of Fredrikshamn. / Fred-Chess 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To anyone reviewing the block, I have mentioned the block on the WP:AN, so please see that page first. / Fred-Chess 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This user is trying to spread non-NPOV propaganda . --Jaakko Sivonen 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced this block with a fresh block of 24 hours duration for move warring. See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Jaakko Sivonen (talk · contribs). --bainer (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You did not answer any of my arguments. The facts are: 1) Hamina is and was then too unilingually Finnish speaking city. Hamina is the title of the article of the city, as it should be, why not then also the title of the treaty that was signed in the city? 2) Hamina was not a part of Sweden in 1809, it had not been since 1743. 3) This treaty ended the Swedish reign in Finland for good and it's more important in Finnish history than in Swedish. I have heard no counter-arguments to these, none. Instead I have heard PAs directed at me. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Jaakko, you have been repeatedly advised to consult our naming policies. We use that placename which was considered official in the given historical period. Not Siege of St. Petersburg, but Siege of Leningrad. Not Battle of Kaliningrad, but Battle of Konigsberg. Not Siege of Gdansk but Siege of Danzig. The official name of Hamina (both in Sweden and in Russia) in 1809 was Frederikshamn. Case closed. --Ghirla 15:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the Russian name was Friedrichshame (someone said that in the article's talk page). The title should be in the language of the majority and the original population, not in the language of invaders (Russians and Swedes alike). Anything else is racism. Also note that the article Diet of Porvoo (in the same year) uses the Finnish name. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I would appreciate it if you would refrain from personal attacks against me. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That goes for you too, fellow compatriot ;) Profanity and calling people "fucking this & that" isn't really considered constructive behaviour here. Please check WP:CIVIL. Cheers, Scoo 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

Just to remind you once again, this in an encyclopedia and it should be NPOV. At the moment, you're lacking NPOV in your edits of historical names of places. The pattern is this: 1. If the city has a Finnish majority today (such as Helsinki/Helsingfors or Turku/Åbo), you edit out the Swedish name even when refering to the cities at the time when Swedish dominated in them. 2. If the city doesn't have a Finnish majority today (such as Vyborg/Viipuri) but once did, you edit out the Russian name when refering to the city during its time as a Finnish city. Now it's time to make up your mind. You could go for the principle to follow present-day majorities or for the principle to follow historical majorities. Both of those options would be NPOV if you used them consistently. To do as you do now, apply different criterias just so you can use the Finnish name all the time, is nationalistic POV. JdeJ 17:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I will never call Viipuri by its Russian name because the Russkies took it illegally by war and there is no justification for it being a part of Russia. See Karelian question in Finnish politics. Btw, Turku had always a Finnish speaking majority, during the Swedish reign too. And all of Finland was unilingually Finnish before the Middle Ages. Have you seen this? --Jaakko Sivonen 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, occupation is illegal in a way. Just a shame that most countries in Europe have had their borders defined by wars, Viipuri is not different from tons of other towns and cities. The Finnish city Viipuri was taken from Finland by force and today is the Russian city of Vyborg. Swedish cities like Helsingfors and Åbo were taken from Sweden by force and today are the Finnish cities Turku and Helsinki. So once again, you follow principles of nationalism and bias, not NPOV.

(As for the claims that Turku has always been Finnish speaking and Finland was monolingual, lol. To funny to merit a discussion.) JdeJ 12:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Turku had always a majority of Finnish speakers and there were no Swedish speakers in Finland prior to Swedish invasion. You must provide a source if you claim otherwise. Helsinki and Turku were not Swedish cities. And I will always refer to Finnish cities by Finnish names, including Maarianhamina and Närpiö etc. (and also Haaparanta). --Jaakko Sivonen 16:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Helsinki and Turku were Swedish cities before 1809 just as much as Viipuri was Finnish in 1939. If a city is founded by Swedes, inhabited by Swedes and situated in the Kingdom of Sweden, well, to most of us it's a Swedish city. And nobody cares even if you use Swahili names for towns in Finland. Just not here. This is an encyclopedia. People who read articles here are interested in knowing the NPOV facts. You try to force your own nationalistic bias on them, even when you know it's wrong. You know very well that Vyborg, Mariehamh, Närpes etc are the official names in English for those cities. That you don't like it doesn't change the fact.

When the first Swedish speakers came to Finland is an open discussion among historians, most of them giving a date between 100BC and 1250AD. As long as even the historians cannot know for sure, neither you nor I know either. We all know what you want to believe, but that's something different. And just because there might have been no Swedish speakers in the territory now known as Finland, it does not mean that the area was monolingually Finnish as Sámi was spoken over a much larger area than today in all Nordic countries. JdeJ 09:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

All Finnish cities were always Finnish cities, not Swedish - ever. Turku never had a Swedish speaking majority and the area was also inhabited for a very long time so it is uncertain whether the city was "founded" at a certain year in the Middle Ages or was it only the castle that was founded. Vyborg, Närpes and Mariehamn are not official English names according to anyone, they are merely the Russian (Vyborg) and Swedish names, in Finnish those names are never used. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jaakko, the reason the names Närpes, Mariehamn and Vyborg appear in all international atlases and that those names are used in all Wikipedias except the Finnish is that they are the official names of those places. That you don't like it and that you think that everything has to be in Finnish is, frankly, of no relevance. This is an encyclopedia, not Jaakko's personal propaganda site. I admit that you do everything you can to turn Misplaced Pages into that by constant racist attacks on Swedes and by trying to claim places that aren't Finnish as Finnish. You seem to confuse this site with nationalist discussion forums. JdeJ 18:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Närpiö is the official name in Finnish. And Viipuri is located in an area always inhabited by Finns. The Russians are nothing but imperialist invaders, not only in Finnish Karelia but also in East-Karelia, the Baltic, Siberia, Chechnya and elsewhere in the Caucasus and nearly everywhere in the area of the Federation of Russia and thus all those lands are to be returned to the original peoples of those areas. It's the same thing with Ahvenanmaa which used to be Finnish speaking (clearly Finnish place names such as Jomala) but which was invaded by Swedes and now inhabited by Anti-Finnish racists (Ahvenanmaa has the same amount of Finnish speakers in percentages as Finland has Swedish speakers, still their rights are not nearly the same). All of Ostrobothnia was once unilingually Finnish as well. The Swedish speakers came across the Gulf of Bothnia in the Middle Ages. I have nowhere made "racist attacks", I have merely supported the Finns' right to their own, rightful land with own names (Ayers Rock is called Uluru nowadays, did you know that?). Do you believe in the right of the invader or to that of the original population? How would you like it if Swedish municipalities would have only Arabic names in 50 years? Would you call them by the Arabic or Swedish names? --Jaakko Sivonen 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Närpiö is the official name in Finnish. That's why that name is used in the Finnish Misplaced Pages. This is the English Misplaced Pages. As for Ostrobothnia ever being monolingually Finnish, that's just propaganda. Do you have any evidence for that? And yes, you're whole attitude is racist. You talk of Finn's 'right to their own, rightful land' and you accuse Swedes and Russians of being invaders. That is pure racism vocabulary. And Swedish has been spoken in these areas for hundreds of years before Mayflower, possibly even before the English came to England and certainly long before Finnish arrived in Lapland. But you think that Finnish names should be used for all municipalities in Finland, even when Swedes make up over 90% of the population. You think that Finnish names should be used for all areas that once were Finnish, even if almost no Finns live their today. You even think that Finnish names should be used for areas that never were apart of Finland. As I've already said, it's POV bias taken to its extreme.JdeJ 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a commonly accepted fact that some Swedish speakers migrated to Finland circa 1250, when Finland became part of Sweden, as stated in articles here as well, thus not before. This is also supported by originally Finnish place names in Pohjanmaa (Maalahti -> Malax). Hundreds of years before Mayflower is exactly what I said: the Middle Ages... Finnish has been spoken in Finland as long as it is possible. "You even think that Finnish names should be used for areas that never were apart of Finland." Northern Sweden used to be Finnish speaking which can be seen f.ex. from place names: Haaparanta, Pajala, Antinrova, Isokylä... The area was Finnish when Swedes came there. The border defined in 1809 was not defined by the language of the population, it cut through the Finnish speaking area. Take a look at this map for example. Finnish tribes lived in what is nowadays Northern Sweden. Other maps. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Academics hold different views on the topic whether parts of what is now Finland was inhabited by Swedish speakers before 1250 or not. The academics currently fail to agree. That means that for you or me to say that it definitely is one way or the other is rather bold. I know that parts of Northern Sweden have been and still are populated by Finnish speakers. They were never part of Finland. And it's true that the border of 1809 did not follow the language of the population. In that case much of what is now Finland would have remained a part of Sweden, such as the coast between Kokkola and Ulvila, the Finnish archipelago and the coast between Hanko and Loviisa.JdeJ 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 3 2006 to Karelia_Suite

Did you block user: Khoikhoi as well? --Jaakko Sivonen 22:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10

Try to count to ten before you answer and keep a civilized discussion tone. Your edit comments do reveal a lot about your intentions and your hatred towards Swedes. MoRsE 02:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of Swedish vandalism in the article. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's a mouthful coming from someone who is constantly vandalising pages here. Just because you don't like NPOV facts and want everything to be according to your nationalist bias doesn't make everybody else vandals. And isn't it strange that Misplaced Pages users all across the globe are practicing Swedish vandalism?? JdeJ 18:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that a Finnish speaking town in Finland that wasn't even a part of the state of Sweden at the given year was a "Swedish town" is a gross lie. Now the Finn-hater racist russophile "Ghirlandajo" is claiming that in the article. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not that user, you can take that discussion with him.JdeJ 17:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know had a look at that user, and just as I expected he does not appear to racist or a Finn-hater at all. Once again, you direct personal attacks against a fellow user just because you don't agree with his edits. I'm issuing a warning.JdeJ 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 5 2006 to Treaty_of_Nöteborg

The duration of the block is 48 hours. 

Clearly you feel strongly about some naming issues. But it must be obvious that just reverting them in will not help you. Discuss more, revert less; perhaps stick to WP:1RR

So why didn't you block Khoikhoi? --Jaakko Sivonen 16:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

You repeatedly accuse people who disagree with your edits for being Svecomans, Swedish vandals or Russophiles. Whily mostly tiresome, your latest accusation was way over the top, describing Ghirlandajo as a 'the Finn-hater racist russophile "Ghirlandajo"'. I'm issuing this warning to you. Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. JdeJ 17:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That user has been following my every edit and taken away Finnish names where they belong and for example called the autonomous Finland of 1809-1917 a "Russian puppet state" etc.. I also hereby issue a warning to you for incorrect accusations and non-neutral approach to articles. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That he has changed edits you have made gives you no right to insult him. And when have I shown a 'non-neutral' approach to articles. Just because a user disagrees with you, and most users on the pages you edit disagrees with you, doesn't make him/her 'non-neutral'. So once again, you label a user for holding opinions different to your own.JdeJ 18:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In Ostrobothnia disambiguation page, Porvoo article etc.. You too have accused me of propaganda, thats PA. Btw take a look at this. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have accused you of being POV and biased against Swedes, that is correct. I have outlined, in detail, why I accuse you of that. There's a difference between stating that somebody appears to be POV and to make personal attacks on them. I showed that you apply double standards in your edits, so that the outcome always agree with your nationalist agenda. Saying that you are a nationalist can hardly be an insult when you state so yourself in your user page, can it? You, on the other hand, accuse a lot of users for being this or that just because you don't agree with their edits and without giving any evidence. There's quite a difference here.JdeJ 18:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

JdeJ is right. No matter what mistakes Ghirla made, it gives you no right to ignore civility and other policies. If he breaks a wiki policy, report him at WP:ANI, if he is incivl, at WP:PAIN, but by being incivil yourself you are only undermining whatever good arguments you have yourself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The last time I saw such tender care for my opponents from Piotrus was when he instructed User:Molobo to persist in revert warring. Back to old ways, eh? --Ghirla 18:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This proves me correct: you were here within minutes. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, the above comment was not addressed to you. Your uncivl reply seems uncomfortaby close to WP:STALK, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, who is stalking here? Please take your anti-Ghirla campaign off-wiki at last (since you just can't abandon it) rather than spreading it further, even to the talk pages of known problem users. Don't hope to find a "useful ally" here . And by encouraging the user like in their activity, you only damage Misplaced Pages further promoting those disruptions. Check his "cotnributions" and logs. --Irpen 22:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 8 2006 to Porvoo

The duration of the block is 48 hours. 

Please find some other way to solve your disputes, or you'll get longer blocks...

Why are my opponents not blocked? There can't be any discussion since most of them merely revert in a vandalic fashion without even giving a reason. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we don't break the rules. And we don't revert 'in a vandalic fashion', we follow NPOV and Misplaced Pages guidelines. It is you who edit out Russian and Swedish names of articles. As I have already explained, you don't follow any other logic than your own nationalism. You think that places that once were Finnish should be refered to by their Finnish names even if they are now Russian. In total contrast, you also think that places that once were Swedish but now are Finnish should be refered to by their Finnish name. So you don't follow any NPOV principle, you only want to maximise the number of places looking Finnish. That is perhaps why you are alone in making those edits and why we are many who revert them. That is why you are completely misguided in calling all of us vandals when you behave in a fashion that is proven to be POV. And those are perhaps the reasons it is you who end up being blocked? Or then it might just be that every moderator is a 'russophile' and a 'Swedish vandalist', the two names you use against anyone who disagrees with you bias.JdeJ 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.Húsönd 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You've been asked many times to be more civil and specifically told that edits like these violate Misplaced Pages's policy on no personal attacks. Because of your long history with these issues, I've temporarily blocked you. Please think about walking away next time something on Misplaced Pages gets you frustrated; you can always come back later when you've cooled down. Shell 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not attack me again, as you did here. If you do it again, you will be blocked. Khoikhoi 23:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalize Misplaced Pages anymore, if you do it you will be blocked. I don't care about being blocked that much, I'll just operate in the Finnish Misplaced Pages more, you obiously do not have a life outside en.wiki, since you have time to stalk my every edit. So: go to Hell. And yeah, you are free to go cry to the admins about me now, I'm sure you will... --Jaakko Sivonen 23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex Bakharev 08:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a lie, I have nothing to do with that user. Adminstrators are more than welcome to use the IP-detector to prove me correct, I hope they do use it. That is a PA against me. I too could claim that you are Ghirla's sock puppet and so is Grafkm_fr and Kuban Kazak since you are all non-NPOV pushing Russophiles. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm prepared to give the benefit of doubt, it's very possible that Jaakko isn't that user. But even if he is not, he does not have the right to remove varnings or information from his talk page, it's considered vandalism. If you feel that Alex's comment was a personal attack (and it certainly was not) you should report it and have a moderator removing it instead. JdeJ 09:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I cannot report it anywhere since I am blocked at the moment. Bakharev's accusation was based on the fact that the user returned my edits on one article, nothing else. There is nothing strange about it since almost any Finn would replace those Swedish names with Finnish ones when talking about Finnish speaking cities in Finland. A Svecoman accused me of being a sock in fi.wiki too but I requested that IP-detector be used and I was proven innocent , it could be done here too if some people are really so paranoid. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)