User talk:Vuo

[edit] Karelian dialect

In your recent changes to the Karelian language article, you've replicated a lot of the points one of my elderly relatives used to make in her frequent jokes about the (slow) Savolax people. She had spent her childhood somewhere at the western Ladoga shore, in some smallish village whose name I've forgotten. The article states that it is not about what Finns consider as a Karelian dialect, but with your recent changes I curiously wonder if this still holds true. --Johan Magnus 16:37, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Karelian language is a dialect continuum, and it's influenced by the Finland Finnish dialects including the Savo dialect.

[edit] Karelian lakes

Could you please comment your changes here? Thank you!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:28, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Labialization of /ʃ/

Concerning your recent edit to the English Language page, I'm not sure if that's right. Listening to myself, I definitely labialize /ʃ/ to [ʃʷ] before rounded vowels, but before unrounded vowels, it's just [ʃ]. I don't know about speakers of other dialects of English of course, but I suspect that, say, [ʃʷi:n] for "sheen" would sound very odd to them. Just my two cents. On the other hand, apparently I *do* labialize them, just more so before rounded vowels. I'll be damned. Take care. --Whimemsz 23:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estonian

Hi Vuo,

Thanks for your clarifications of length in Estonian. I knew something was off with the old wording, but am not familiar with Fennic languages myself. kwami 18:01, 2005 August 23 (UTC)

[edit] Sauli Niinistö

I probably should feel offended about your blanking of Talk:Sauli Niinistö. Are you a Niinistö voter yourself? =) JIP | Talk 19:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the discussion is simply irrelevant with respect to the article and tantamount to vandalism. See [1] --Vuo 22:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was about Sauli Niinistö. It was not about the Wikipedia article about Sauli Niinistö. I was under the impression that Wikipedia allowed talk about the subjects of the articles, not only about the articles themselves. At least, I have seen plenty of precedent for that. JIP | Talk 22:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, especially if it's personal attacks. --Vuo 22:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Åland Autonomy

I would like to inquire if your comment regarding the autonomy of Åland is the result of ignorance or contempt for the Åland Islands. It amazes me that a Finn, who by all standards should have at least basic knowledge about the autonomy of Åland, expresses such misinformed views. --Nappilainen 14:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The term "autonomy" usually means that everything but foreign policy and the protection of the military is handled by the local government, and that the nation is a federation. None of these apply; the entire territory of Finland is governed by the Finnish law, as set in the national parliament. --Vuo 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Please state the source for that definition. I don't see why autonomy should imply that the nation is a federation. And I would like to point this out: Åland is _not_ governed solely by Finnish law, many of the laws that govern Åland are set by Lagtinget. You may want to read Självstyrelselagen before you spread any further erroneous statements, the link is on the Finland-talk page. The autonomy of Åland has been the subject of academic study since it was established and let me stress this: no serious scholar challenges the fact that Åland _is_ an autonomy. --Nappilainen 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate numbering

[2] – If '1' is so problematic, then, why is it used normally in all the other numbers (10, 11, etc)? If you have some kind of authoritative source for your information, could you mention it in the discussion? --Jonik 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MTBE

your revisions to MTBE make no sense. Have you read the arthur d little study? it is totally superficial as well as erroneous. what is the length of your experince with MTBE? have you ever worked on an MTBE cleanup? i have worked in the field of groundwater contamination from leaking fuel tanks for over 30 years and know this subject. MTBE is a known carcinogen and of a concern at very low concentrations. you have reverted this article so that it is essentially a pawn of the MTBE industry. i will not let the article stand with the bias you have instilled. but i will give you the courtesy of awaiting your response and invite any others knowledgable in this matter to comment. let us be scientific and correct in what we impart here.Anlace 21:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The content itself is not really the problem. The problem is that you want to create a political pamphlet or something. An encyclopedia is not a place for comments such a As with most carcinogens, it is difficult to determine long term effects of exposure. Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. So, it's not poisonous, but it's poisonous? The only part of that is really needed in the article is: Researchers have limited data about the health effects of ingesting MTBE. This is the "state of the art", and it needs to be mentioned. Trying to sound scary is not a good practice. Furthermore, I added content that has sources; true, it's just petrol industry, but you have nothing to offer in return. + On the content, reply to Talk:MTBE. --Vuo 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your response...here are the issues 1. the part you quote in italics was not my contribution and i agree its almost meaningless 2. MTBE is a known carcinogen 3. as with many carcinogens it is difficult to have long term data to show effects. how many decades did we wait before acting on smoking as a danger after someone knew it to be carcinogenic?? 4. you still havent told me whether you read the a d little article 5. you still havent said how many MTBE cleanups you have worked on. 6. i agree this is no place for a political statement and will heed that in any further revisions. i am not a political person, but rather a scientist. 7. im not trying to sound scary, but MTBE is an enormous problem. in the usa alone the cleanup costs already mandated will be staggering 8. i will give you more references to this matter on my next edit 9. above all i appreciate this discourse, even though we seem to disagree; im not sure how much we will disagree once we share all the relevant facts sincerely Anlace 22:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kemira Growhow

Vuo: I do not see your point in changing the fresh 2006 Kemira Growhow data that was there into some old figures from 2004? The fact that Kemira Growhow web site has some outdated information is not good reason to have outdated information here, right?

Right. Although one should denote the money in euros, the operating currency, not dollars. --Vuo 19:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] modifying noun cases

re your edit at [[3]]

You say that the cases modify the verb but not the noun. That is surely illogical! They must be modifying the noun. Am I not right in thinking that the location of the word ikkunassa is critical? If the phrase said "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" the problem is solved because ikkunassa is then used as an adjective to housuja because adjectives always precede their nouns. When coming after housuja as in "voinko sovittaa noita housuja ikkunassa" it means that ikkunassa must be being used adverbally, this describing where the fitting is taking place. As the comment on the discussion page says, even the English construction is bad because it is ambiguous. Although this is an interesting thread it is perhaps not best placed under the heading of locative cases.

I have great respect your knowledge of Finnish and grammar so have not changed your edit, but you may wish to think about whether you want to change it yourself. Regards Tom 12:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Refers to, not modifies. I can say that "voinko sovittaa noita ikkunassa housuja" is ungrammatical, as a native Finnish speaker. It is the intent to provide an example where it would be ambiguous where the locative refers to (sovittaa, or housuja), and demonstrate that it points to the verb (sovittaa ikkunassa), not the noun (housuja ikkunassa). --Vuo 23:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the illative----

Ok I'm picking on you again!

In the article on illative (Finnish noun cases) you put this as the introduction...

The ending is *-hən, where ə indicates the preceding vowel, and 'h' elides should the result be a simple long vowel. (This elision does not occur in some dialects, such as in Pohjanmaa.) The ending is added to the strong vowel stem. The third of the local cases with the basic meaning "into"

I honestly do not think that most Finns would regard there as being an elided h in most forms of the illative. It seems to me that adding the 'h' is a simple way of overcoming the problem of extending an already long vowel. This is how Finnish is taught to us learning the language by professional teachers, and it seems perfectly logical. The Pohjanmaa dialect I agree is interesting and, although you have not claimed it, it may, for all I know, have some historical significance too. BUT, I'm not sure that the exception makes the rule!

Would you re-consider this? I am trying to encourage the use of WIKIs for learning the language. Although I am aiming to create this away from the Wikipedia, the Wikipedia is a good reference point and we may update it if we think it necessary. It is nice to have them in step with each other, but *-hən and a usually elided 'h' is going to be a hard sell to my Finnish Grammar teacher. Can you re-consider it?

(PS Thanks for the reply re pants in the window!) Tom 22:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 22:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the only case in Finnish, where consonant elision takes place; the partitive case -ta → -a is the most widespread. However, it is morphologically correct, no matter how funny it sounds, to leave the consonant in place. That is, leipähän is correct, although it sounds old-fashioned. But, kuu → *kuun (pro kuuhun) is NOT correct, and will change meanings. So, err on the side of caution.

Furthermore, long vowel-producing processes are very much alive in spoken Finnish, so it's not unfamiliar to a Finnish speaker to create the long vowel. In fact, there's even dispute on the professor level if non-initial non-simple vowels are long vowels/diphthongs or sequences of vowels. (So, leipään is syllabicated either /lei.pä:n/ or /lei.pä.än/.) And, this question about *-hən/-ən is a theory, and we want the simplest theory that is accurate: if we take *-ən as the "basic" form, this makes all words not ending in a short vowel exceptions to the general rule, adding unnecessary complexity. --Vuo 02:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I accept that it works and is understood, but I still think it is wrong, because in the standard language, the elision is standard and so we need to state the rules for the elision. The standard teaching is that the form is

1. -Vn (where V is the last vowel on the genetive singular stem).

when the word is more that 2 syllables long.

-Vn is the most common notation that I have seen in various grammar books (e.g. Fred Karlsson's "Finnish. An Essential Grammar", Leila White's "Suomen kielioppia ulkomaalaisille" and Markukka Kenttälä's Kieli käytöön). )

Examples

Talo > Talon > Taloon

Käsi > Käden > Käteen (showing s-t-d gradation changes)

Kankea > Kankean > Kankeaan

2. -seen on the genetive stem

where the genetive stem ends in a long vowel

Examples

huone > Huoneen > Huoneeseen

Lontoo > Lontoon > Lontooseen

3. -hVn

where the word is only 1 syllable long and ends in a vowel

Examples

kuu > Kuun > Kuuhun

tie > tien > tiehen

I think this is still the better explanation as it always gives the right answer in Standard Finnish. Tom 13:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palatalization

Hi, please take a look at Talk:Palatalization.

Regards, Amir E. Aharoni 10:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Reaction

Please see the comments on the talk page.

[edit] What language?

That was just a general example of what quality vs. quantity means, so I wrote "/k/ with /g/" as an example of change in quality of voicing, because /k/ vs. /v/ would represent only Finnish. It wasn't meant to be from any specific language. If you want a specific language, /k/ vs /g/ could pass for Karelian. --Ryan 19:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, /k/ to /g/ doesn't really stress the point enough: the consonant can be replaced, not just simply modified w.r.t. voicing and such. Citing Pohjanmaa Finnish vesi, veren, veteen. --Vuo 20:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical stuff

Still curious on your source for the following:

There are also traces of earlier gradation patterns, predating the current system. For example, the noun case partitive (a very common case, usage about 15% of all instances) and the verb form I infinitive share the ending -ta/-tä. However, more often than not, this is gradated to -a/-ä. For example, the noun jousi has the partitive jousta with the original -ta, but the noun kylä has the partitive kylää, from *kylätä. With verbs, assimilation may occur, e.g. tulla ← *tul+ta. The t-deletion occurs whenever a simple long vowel results in standard Finnish. The Karelian dialect, in particular, sometimes does not delete the intervocalic 't'.

Not that I don't believe it, of course, as it seems to be a plausible explaination. I haven't found it in Hakulinen's book, though I may not have searched deeply enough. --Ryan 20:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to say "somewhere on the net" now, but when I have time, I could find an actual book on this. But, I'm sure that this is an important part of a "standard description" of consonant gradation. --Vuo 20:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are far better examples of suffixal gradation than something like this that can hardly be said to be an alternation anymore. Similar to the menkää vs. mene? thing you cited in the Finnish article; since the historical reconstruction of the singular imperative would have been something like menek this would have not been an alternation back in the day. The change in my mind is a result of historical lenition, not some lenition process; the amount of final consonants became more restrictive across the language anyway. On the other hand I haven't found mention of that in Hakulinen's book either. --Ryan 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The living fish swims in water

I will accept your edit if I cannot convince you, but I do feel that I should explain that I used the word "tenuous", to which you objected, because I have read reports concluding that the Finnic and Ugric languages are not in fact descended from a common ancestor. Therefore, they would have a tenuous connection rather than a distant divergence. Again, as you seem to do lots of editing in this field, I will defer to your final judgment. --M@rēino 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, there are some crackpot theories about a Turkic-Ugric linguistic connection, but these have political motivations. No serious researcher (that is, no fringe theorists) question the relatedness of Finnic and Ugric. The common vocabulary is the strongest argument. --Vuo 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Uralic

Terve, tein vähän isompia lisäyksiä aloittamaasi artikkeliin Proto-Uralic, ja lisäsin puuttuvan artikkelin Proto-Samoyed. Jos sinulla on kommentteja tai ehdotuksia uusiin versioihin, niin kuulen niistä mielelläni. --AAikio 11:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dynamic Universe AfD

Can you please respond to GarthBarber's comments in this AfD? Thanks, Crum375 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, no. I'm not a physicist. --Vuo 13:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

There is a very close vote on the WW2 discussion page going on at the moment about the overview of WW2. I would like it if you could vote, as I am very worried that the "narrow" viewpoint will win. Thank you. Wallie 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did a Finn give California its name?

Hi Vuo. What do you think about this idea?

[edit] Inflection?

Hi, Vuo... I was at the Finnish language page today, and saw in the first paragraph, "It modifies the forms of nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals and verbs depending on their roles in the sentence."

I was thinking of an edit to say something like:

Finnish is an inflected language, in which the forms of words change depending on their roles in a sentence.

I don't speak Finnish, though I dated a Finnish girl in college, and so thought I'd raise the question with you here because of your contributions to the page and your knowledge of the language. The little I know tells me (as a native English speaker) that Finnish definitely is inflected, and maybe deserves some mention on the Inflection page as well. — OtherDave 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish phonology: diphthongs

Hello! I'm glad that you keep an active eye on the article about Finnish phonology as you seem to have good knowledge about it. However, I have to disagree with you concerning the phonological representation of diphthongs. Please see the new section on the respective talk page. Thanks. --Oghmoir 17:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:mergefrom-multiple and languages

Hi!

I really like the way your mergefrom notice is obvious in the article! However, I was under the impression that the Right Thing to do was a WP:TIE

I'm wondering whether there's any way to combine the advantages of a WP:TIE listing and a template note, maybe by just including a category tag in a new template and adding a pointer on TIE to that category.

Until then, just a heads-up that doing both a TIE listing and the note might be more effective for now (and, of course, a request for information on what the best practice is .. I read foreign Wikipedias, though there are few languages I understand well, and I'm a bit distraught at how so much valuable information is only available in a secondary language).

I'm pondering giving Template:Translateandmergefrom a shot ...

RandomP 00:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A more general solution would be a Template:Contentsource to suggest that extremely crucial information is in another content source, and major editing should not be done without consulting the source first. This case is pretty obvious: articles disagree on the very definition. Another similar situation is with the article Economy of Finland. The English original is a revamp of an old CIA factbook entry, missing vital statistics and having a stilted point of view, with a focus so outdate it's essentially worthless. The Finnish article itself has no problems. --Vuo 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be more general, sure, but what would be the point of that? It's not like all editors can read all languages, and an article that needs translation is of interest both to editors reading that article (who might happen to read the other language) and to editors who know the language (and might be interested in the articles subject matter).

I agree the Economy section in the Finland article is really bad. Don't read Finnish, alas :-)

RandomP 15:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, you can take a cursory glance at an article without knowing the language. In the article fi:Suomen talous, the structure of the economy is described with lists and percentages. The lack of these in the English article is obvious to anyone, even if they knew neither Finnish or English. I can't speak German or French, but I can easily identify that the content is not found in the English article Activity (chemistry). --Vuo 15:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] atomic number 118.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Revisiting one of physics' most embarrassing cases of scientific misconduct, researchers from Russia and the United States announced Monday that they have created a new super-heavy element, atomic number 118.

Scientists said they smashed together calcium with the manmade element Californium to make an atom with 118 protons in its nucleus. The new element lasted for just one millisecond, but it was the heaviest element ever made and the first manmade inert gas -- the atomic family that includes helium, neon and radon.

Hello. I see that there's already an article for this, called Ununoctium. Perhaps you would like to update that article with this news article? Or perhaps put it in the In The News section of wikipedia? dposse 20:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been in the news already. --Vuo 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh? I guess i missed it. dposse 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education system in Finland

Hi,

You have contributed to the article related to Education in Finland. I would be interested in your opinion about some issue that I detailed on the mentioned article talk page about a point of your contribution in the Adult education section. I thank you for your attention. Best regards. --nha, from Lyon, France. 12:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambig pages

Hi,

I noticed that you put [[ERM]]. ERM is a disambig page, and generally, linking to them is discouraged, especially when it clearly refers to something on the list. No big deal. But I just thought it's better to get it right the first time so that people working on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links would have less items to do. Cheers! --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus decision-making and the Polder Model

just a heads up to let you know i've reworded the lead on Consensus decision-making after your edit to include the Polder Model. i made this edit to keep the tone of the lead more 'generalist' and to balance it so that Polder Model didn't get more verbiage than other, equally important, models/groups ie Quakers. Now, in light of your edit, i realize that this article does need to include Polder Model in more detail somewhere in the body. my first reaction is that it should get a sub-section under Consensus_decision-making#Models_of_consensus_decision_making. Looking for opinions! -- frymaster 15:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Consensus democracy has an overlap with this, although the article itself is a bit thin. --Vuo 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uses of Poison

"The uses of poisons because of their toxicity is limited."

Do you mean "Some poisons are used because their toxicity is limited."? --DryaUnda 15:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

These are different statements. It means that there are very few reasons to use a poison because it's a poison. Many chemicals have a significant toxicity while being useful for some other reason. There are few uses for the toxicity itself. Phosphine, for example, is used to kill pests by poisoning them, therefore you cannot use something that's not poisonous — at least to the pests. (You could also use pyrethrine, which has a low toxicity to humans and high toxicity to insects, but it leaves a residue, which is unacceptable in some applications.) --Vuo 21:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shelling of Mainila

Hi. In Shelling of Mainila you recently added that Yeltsin admitted in 1998 that the incident was fabricated by the Soviets. Do you have a reference for this, by any chance? I'm not able to find any sources that back up that claim. I would appreciate if you could help out. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It was from another wiki (fi), and the reference is to Yeltsin's denunciation of Stalin's policy of attacking Finland in President Ahtisaari's first state visit to Russia. --Vuo 13:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I think for verifiability, we will likely need to find something with a good amount of validity. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This site refers to President Yeltsin's and President Ahtisaari's press conference 18 May 1994. Yeltsin is quoted: "Annexation of Karelia [into the Soviet Union] was aggression, Stalin's totalitarian policy, and we with President [Ahtisaari] cannot accept this." The importance of this is that as Yeltsin was a successor to Stalin, he could be assumed to support or even continue similar aggressive policies unless he explicitly denounced them. Presidents of Russia have not advocated changing the border, and neither does the Finnish people. --Vuo 10:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the importance. However, without some sort of a primary source attributing specifically the Shelling of Mainila as a Soviet fabricated incident, we probably can't say that Yeltsin said that in the article. -- IlyaHaykinson 01:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Captitive verb

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Captitive verb, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong J. M. Salleh 08:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling the word correctly ""captative verb" improves the search result count significantly. --Vuo 14:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ununbium

Thanks for the prompt and informative citation! That's one of my coolest Wiki experiences yet. Potatoswatter 09:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Carc.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BuLi

Dear Vuo: As you can see, I reorganized the n-BuLi page a lot. I hope that you are not offended by such a big change, because you have made several valuable edits. Eventually we'll get a real organicker on to this article. If you feel that my changes were too strong, then feel free to revert or re-edit as you think is best - none of us owns this page. Cheers and best wishes for further productive changes. --Smokefoot 04:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Carc.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Carc.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thong (clothing)

The article should still be considered under-construction. Your advise on the gallery is highly welcome. But, I guess, I will eventually try to have a minimum number of images in the article. Too many images make for a bigger page size, which may be difficult for billions of people out there struggling with a slow internet connection in search of information on the Wikipedia. Besides, images that add only a little value at the expense of cluttering up the article and opening scopes for irrelevant image spamming may be a not-too-desirable situation. I really plan to put back as many images as fit (removal of the gallery is just a beginning of the work), and I am just stating my concerns here. Thankas. It would be very helpful if you could check the article and the images on it tomorrow. Let me know if I am missing something. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is true that it is under construction. The perpetual under-construction, I think, also includes the image policy or lack of such. My suggestion is to put all images (except one at the intro) into a gallery, the rest being text only. That should limit attempts by different users to "liven up" the article by adding a lot of images along the text. --Vuo (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BuLi

Very nice pics.--Smokefoot (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish numerals

Korjasin takaisin "korjauksesi" tekstiini sekä täydensin ja järjestelin lisäystäsi. Vilkaise ja korjaa lisää, ellet ole tyytyväinen. Taneli HUUSKONEN (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ä

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit to Ä [5] as vandalism [6] since the text I added is correct and common knowledge for many Swedes. Could you please explain your actions? –panda (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was added under "Letter Ä", not Germanic umlaut-A. For the letter Ä, there is no substitution (if forced, "A"). ... And btw, there was this April's Fool connected to this: [7] --Vuo (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It was added to the correct location as it has to do with the Swedish ä, not the German ä. The April Fool's joke is about completely removing å, ä, ö from Swedish, not about how it is written when it's not available on a keyboard. Å is written as "aa", ä as "ae", and ö as "oe" when the it's not possible to write "å", "ä", and "ö". I have a letter from the Consulate of Sweden in New York City that was written this way, so it is considered an acceptable way to write Swedish. I personally don't know what the Finns do so the statement made it clear that it was only about Swedish. –panda (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct now.--Vuo (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Barbarossa

There's some back-and-forth editing you might be interested in at the Operation Barbarossa page. I deleted a paragraph you first wrote back in January 2007. Do you have the reference for the paragraph about large numbers of Soviet maps showing Germany and Russian=>German phrasebooks for asking where the German SA is? And a reference for the fact that Soviet maps were scarce in the Soviet Army but German maps were plentiful? You might be able to return the paragraph's clarity. Binksternet (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of it I read from the one-source review in Finnish in here, but there is a very short English review in here. After inspecting the reference list of the Finnish article (mostly Suvorov), I personally take it with a grain of salt, althought the basic idea is right: the Communists did want to attack and invade, not just sit tight and wait for Hitler to attack them. There is actually a WP article here: Icebreaker (Suvorov). --Vuo (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for diving back in. Binksternet (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)