User talk:Paavo273

Valtioneuvos et al

Hello! I saw your interest in the article Valtioneuvos. I have compiled a table of all the Finnish titles that have been awarded 1918–2005 (here on fi-wiki). The columns are: the title – the number of recipients – first awarded year 19xx – tax group or the "price group". --Pxos (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lauri

Ymmärrät Suomi, oikea? Ole hyvä ja katso muutokset, jotka käyttävät suomalaisia ​​lähteitä. Kiitos. [You understand Finnish, correct? Please look at the edits which use Finnish sources. Thank you.] Lauri Törni – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Terve S. Rich,

Kiitos erinomaisesta työstä Törnin sivulla ja toisella sivuilla. Epä-onnelisesti minun suomen kieli taito on hirvea, edes kauhea! (myöskin olen opiskellut venäjän kieli paljon kauanempi ja äskenempi (Sekin on hirvea mutta parempi kuin minun suomea) Tuolla tavalla on ongelma minulle. Mitä haluaisitte minua katsomaan Suomen lähteistä? kaikki tosiasiat tai kuinka? Terveisin, Paavo273 (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Translate says "[Welcome S. Rich, Thank you for your excellent work Törni on the page and the other pages. Un-happy for my Finnish language skills are terrible, even horrible! (I have also studied the Russian language a lot of time, more and just more (That, too, is a terrible thing, but better than my Finnish) Like that is a problem for me. What would you like me to take a look at Finnish sources? with all the facts, or how? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 6:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)]"

Hello Paavo. The only Finnish I know is what Google Translate does on my behalf. Regarding Lauri, please look at the Finnish sources in this section: Lauri Törni#Legacy disputed. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi again S. Rich,

I pored over those sources and added some info. Now I'm glad I looked up WHO added it 'cuz I was just going to delete it and state in no uncertain terms why it doesn't belong. Well, given all you TIME and effort to improve the article, you "deserve" better than that. Nevertheless, I honestly don't believe it qualifies for inclusion in a WP article and here's why: 1. It's not properly cited. If you're citing the book, you need to actually CITE it, not some reviews of it. In reality, you're only citing the reviews. This article is about LT, not the book. It's an invalid cite situation. If s.o. gets his/her hands on the actual book, then it's fine as to that point. 2. The other reason it IMO doesn't fly is I don't think it's a very scholarly work. There's way more reliable and scholarly sources both in Finnish and English. There's a definite weight issue. That's why IMO it doesn't belong at all.

Speaking of all your work, would you say it's about time to lose the banner cite tag? Even if there are still a couple places need cites, those could have just inline tags. It's no longer a systemic problem to the article. Well, since you're the one responsible, I'll let you do the honors.  :-) Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes. I've removed the cite improve template and will continue to work on the article. At the moment I'm looking at Gill and will use some of his material next week. Regarding Tuntematon, I can't say if is scholarly or not. It is clear that the book got noticed in Finland, so it's proper to include mention of it. I'm not citing the reviews as sources, but just including the reviews so that readers and editors can look to them for more info. – S. Rich (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi S. Rich, No that's fine, as long as you're working on it. I just removed the banner tag. The only reason for that was the TLT book, right? I have no problem as long as we agree to work on that to give it the proper weight it deserves, which IMO is extremely little.

I agree with you: It's probably not excludable since it's a major FI publishing house and these guys are at least on paper "scholars."

My concern is twofold: 1. This is receiving UNDUE WEIGHT the way it is. It's pretty clear from the three sources citing it that it was sensationalist/tabloid-type stuff in nature. There would be more reliable works to place there. (IMO, every reader of the book, that is to say every Finnish speaker, would recognize the sensationalist character of it before even opening the cover--from the allusion to the extremely famous Finnish novel and movies Tuntematon Sotilas), "Tuntematon" not being such an everyday word for book titles that it would slip past making a connection. Especially in a book about WWII. Point being use of "Tuntematon" was NOT accidental and was meant to be noticed by everybody.

The other thing as I mentioned and you've acknowledged is the citation problem. You're not actually citing the book. I can't point to any black-letter policy at the moment, but I'm sure mainly from my understanding of WP policy and maybe my background teaching advanced (and not so advanced :-) ) writing that that is an inappropriate reference. I think until a WP editor actually has the BOOK, the main secondary source in hand, it shouldn't be cited INLINE at all. Maybe in a list of references ('Not even sure about that.) 'Cuz what really is being discussed is the reviews, not or only indirectly the book. If I come up with the right way to solve it, I'll let you know. If you figure out the best way, let me know. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Vinkki koskien Y:tä

Helou, oletko nähnyt tämän [1]? Y pyyhki pyynnön keskustelusivultaan vastaamatta.ABNewbie (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you very much for your questions and suggestions on my user page. You probably noticed sign "retired" on my page. In brief, I have very good personal reasons not be actively involved in anything on this site (reasons of this nature), although I still might (and probably will) occasionally edit pages that are not frequented by other contributors. So, I can not really answer your question and suggestions. I would advise you to ask about this directly wikipedia administrators. Most of them are friendly and very helpful. If you have any questions related to Russia, good admins to ask would be User:Ezhiki or User:Alex Bakharev. Sorry and happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Layout

Did you know that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines recommends that users should "start new topics at the bottom of the page"?--Toddy1 (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk article

I would like to come to a compromise on the Arseniy Yatsenyuk article if at all possible; that is to say, a way to fairly represent my sources and your sources with equal weight as long as they remain valid and have not been refuted. To do that, there are some facts to consider for the article for both of our reference, and I think it's important to consider them before proceeding further:

Agreed.

Fact: Arseniy Yatsenyuk is not Jewish; he is a Greek Catholic as far as sources go;

The only source that I have seen that mentions Jewish religion is Ben Judah's article you? found that refers to his "Judaism."

The dispute AFAIK is rel his ethnicity.

Fact: The Rabbi Bleich has stated that he is not Jewish, and this should be added to the final article;

Actually, if your interpretation is correct, then it's not relevant. I however do not see wording or other evidence that it refers to Jewish religion. I DO see in the paragraph right after that the reference to Kuzio's thoughts about AY's Jewish ethnicity. In addition, Kuzio is cited in another source, PLUS one of the sources you raised IS Kuzio. Is that next paragraph (the juxtaposition of the two) the basis for your reasoning that the rabbi is referring to AY not being a practicing Jew? If so, I would point out that that is the article author's juxtapositioning, NOT the rabbi's.

Fact: Many analytical and intelligence sources however have reported Yatsenyuk either as having "Jewish origins" or "Jewish parentage"; regardless, they do this in a non-slurring fashion, and even show concern that his parentage and family origin may render him to anti-semitic slurs;

I would agree that those you've cited aren't necessarily intending to defame, but they are always discussed in teh context of the anti-semitic slurs by OTHERS.

Fact: There is nothing to prove that these sources have an anti-semitic agenda, nor that they would publish for their paid-clients (as in the case of Oxford Analytica) misleading, false information that would potentially create a fiasco;

As above.

Fact: Yatsenyuk's Jewish background and supposed Jewish faith has been used already to harm his political prospects;'

Right.

If we can cover this in the article, balance it, and make sure we stress that Yatsenyuk himself is not Jewish (without referring to these sources as "slurs"--If you read the articles closely, you'll see that they all carefully say that he is Jewish origin without additional qualification) and that this has been used to attack him in the past, I think we could make for a much more balanced article. I've tried already to add additional appendum to this notion, but we'll see how the final article takes shape.

As far as my personal allegiances, I have no agenda as to "outing" Yatsenyuk as Jewish, and I hope you don't immediately discredit me as such because my Russian background (as I have previously for a time removed my ethnicity from my wiki page as you would see from the history), since it appears you are a Finn; I don't immediately assume such notions of you, and I only have article factuality in mind; If these sources didn't exist, or if they were Jeff Rense, Infowars, etc. I wouldn't even bother, but these are mainstream credible sources, and they can't simply be ignored because they give fodder to bigots. That would be infactual and political correct censorship, so I want to make the article better and see what we can both come up with to incorporate these sources as well as the fact that antisemites have been at large towards Yatsenyuk.

"they can't simply be ignored because they give fodder to bigots" That is a core issue. Not ignored, but whether to include is a huge issue under BLP.

I am of Finn ethnicity and spent some time there, but as I have never hidden, am also a [[Russophilia|Russophile] in the second sense of the word (love the great Russian culture, most people, language, cinema, literature, etc.) as discussed in that WP article. (I would also consider myself an "Ameriphile," again only in the second sense as used in the Russophilia article (well, not so much American cinema)). This "love" for the "hated enemies" would alienate me from many Finns as well as Ukrainians. I am also a Ukrainophile. 'Used to live in the then-Ukrainian town of Sevastopol & spent time in Western Ukraine.

I never at any point intended to call you anti-semitic or imply that.

See above.

Do you agree?

See above.

Solntsa90 (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:Solntsa90: See my replies point by point above. But as I say, lets continue this on the talk page. (Since this is my talk page and I can alter and delete anybody's remarks here as I wish, I took the liberty to reply IN-TEXT, something I acknowledge would not be acceptable on article talk pages.) Paavo273 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Antisemite incident in Finland

Hello,

as I said in my edit summary, I removed the one incident because I felt that such individual acts, albeit regrettable, do not necessarily constitute something that is notable enough for an encyclopedia (see Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, if you insist on citing a "policy" here). If you feel that the content is relevant for an encyclopedia, it's a content issue, but I am not going to argue against it. Cheers, hydrox (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to A Driver for Vera may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Viktor and the maid, Lida (Yekaterina Yudina) and her scathing attack on his motives rel Vera), the KGB, using Agent Saveliev, plots to take down and ultimately kill the general. Nobody is safe.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovych revert

I partially reverted you here: [2]. Just wanted to say that it's not because I think the material (about the Swiss and Austrian asset freeze) is unimportant or poorly sourced. I had already inserted something similar, so we now have two sentences that say pretty much the same thing, plus your sentence talks about "that same day" without any context. I took the easy way out and removed your sentence. If you like we can combine the two sentences instead. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kendall-K1, No you're absolutely right, and thanks for fixing this. I placed it where another editor, not I, had correctly placed it, AND, as the diff. proves, I then also put it a second time in the wrong place--accidentally--where you caught it. Repetition in an article, contrary to some people's edit approaches, is NOT always a bad thing. But clearly as you pointed out it makes no sense to put it together, especially one sentence right after the other and with "the same day" having no referrant. Another user had borderline-vandalized this info (no explanation at all for blanking RSd content) out of its original location, and I guess I was really tired when trying to restore it. It really fits well in its other location. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the other editor, and I figured that was probably what happened. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paavo273. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias

Hi, Thanks for your comment at that talk page. I have withdrawn before edit warring over this very thing, e.g., this was the other parties most recent salvo. I went looking for an inline "systemic bias" template and arrived at the essay where I was greatly amused by this..... Wikipedia talk:Systemic bias#Ironically, this essay engages in systemic bias use of "America" when what is meant is "US". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Steinbeck

Great user page quote! -Darouet (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning February 2014 Euromaidan riots, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Re Jennifer Hornyak AfD

Thanks Paavo273. I will do as advised on the Jennifer Hornyak entry.HeatherBlack (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

– Thanks so much for letting me know that the review was over and for your support and kind words. When I finish my paragraph, I am planning to send it to the main critic with a thank-you note. I agree with your point of contacting the author directly to ask for more research, and will bring that up. You also made a good point re "Canadian content" but apparently we can't post comments on the "delete" page anymore. If you'd like me to send the new paragraph to you, I'd be happy to. I really appreciate your help. Best regards HeatherBlack (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "February 2014 Euromaidan riots". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussed edit on Carl Gustav Emil Mannerheim page

I understand what you are saying there however in that situation you ought to utilize the wikipeda tags like {{citation needed}} or {{clarify}} or some of the other tags as required. Inserting your own assertions regardless of the reason behind it does not really benefit any one. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Wanderer602: Thanks for the additional source and thanks for providing details of what actually happened. "My bad" for unintentionally changing to what hurt rather than helped accuracy. I was not trying to change any meaning, only to make sense of. It is not IMO a real' productive pursuit to go through adding inline citation tags on this article considering how much of it is still unsourced or in any case not cited.

The tags I would have added had you not kindly clarified and provided a proper source, would have been for inadequate citation and for foreign language source.

I only wish you wouldn't question my motive. I have added a significant amount of material to this article over the last couple years, virtually all of it source-cited (unlike the lingering state of some of the article now. I hope to add cites to existing uncited material from the Clements bio of M I recently read), and heretofore never got an objection including from you, except from one M-hater.

Thanks for your eagle-eye, your copious time-consuming work, and your itsepäinen m.o. on Finland-related articles overall, without which there'd be real cause for worry. Best, Paavo273 (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really questioning your motive. Just noting that by inserting your own assertions you are in practice doing original research regardless of your motivation or intent. In essence "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" so extra care ought to be taken to avoid such pitfalls. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@ User:Wanderer602: "By inserting your own assertions you are in practice doing original research..." I agree. You're right, to the extent that what I assert doesn't match the source (which in this case was not properly cited and if it could be found is not in English), that DEFINITELY IS OR. HOWEVER, I really believe my greater sin was being inaccurate, considering OR is one of the most common rules violations at WP and there are probably thousands of WP articles with NO sources cited at all (either because editors didn't bother to cite or because published sources don't exist), many of which articles nevertheless still provide valuable accurate information.

The main lesson 4 me here, I think, is that now I know you're watching the page, if there's any scintilla of uncertainty, provided I don't have a source in hand I'll just ask for clarification on the talk page.

The only complaint I think I ever got previously in all my many edits on M was s.o. complained that it was just my opinion that M is known as the father of modern FI (ALSO ADMITTEDLY OR at that point but ACCURATE OR), whereupon I cited about half a dozen diverse sources in support and could probably have added a hundred more sources.) Paavo273 (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Signifying agreement

Hi Paavo273: Would you be able to indicate whether, or not, you agree to this mediation here? Sunray (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yanukovych whereabouts

can you check on his last known location? another fight is happening on his page...ugh..--Львівське (говорити) 22:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey can you take a look at the Yanukovych talk page? There's an issue with a user arguing that Yanukovych wasn't disowned by the Regions and other stuff. --Львівське (говорити) 15:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Viktor Yanukovych may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Lviv Region Independence

Negative, the article invents stuff that does not correspond the reality. Have you read the statement to which the article refers? The original article from Interfax-Ukraine (http://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/190981.html) never mentions word "independence". One should be careful using stuff like that. International Business Times lost all its credibility as it tries to set up an international scandal, because the journalists does not have a clue on the subject. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hendrix AfD

Sorry, you didn't !vote twice. I moved your vote right about the same time that you did. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Melissa Scott

I reverted your addition to Melissa Scott (pastor). The Marie Claire article has come up over and over, and consensus is that a single source is not sufficient to cite a controversial claim in a WP:BLP. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107#Melissa Scott and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188#Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor) for further discussion. — Brianhe (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Can't decipher your last edit summary. Are you claiming that I have a COI over Melissa Scott? On what basis? — Brianhe (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Paavo273. You have new messages at Musdan77's talk page.
Message added 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Musdan77 (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess you either didn't see my reply or you ignored it. Anyway, it's been taken care of. ("If you want something done right...") --Musdan77 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't even sneeze in that general direction

Your suggestion is possibly a good one... however, it comes with a huge "however". Work on the entire article ground to a halt a long, long time ago due to constant edit warring. The dust from the last outbreak hasn't settled as yet. Sadly, it's become one of 'those' articles that you don't dare change a definite or indefinite article for fear of land-mines exploding (although I do thank you for the addition of that definite article which was probably lost in a skirmish). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rauli Somerjoki may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Pölönen]] directed the film ''Badding'', starring [[Janne Reinikainen]] about Somerjoki's life. (It is available on DVD, bundled with Pölönen's ''[[Onnen maa]]'', a [[comedy-drama]] about a

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

LHO

Your recent editing history at Lee Harvey Oswald shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Could you cool it for a while, please? There are good reasons why your edits are inappropriate, and if we can follow the logos, we'll all be better off for it. --Pete (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wilder

Can you tell me to what you are referring to in your recent Talk post? It appears you are replying to someone else's criticsm of your edits, but I don't see any reverts, so...? Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Hi Ckruschke and thanks for the contact. Was I sparring with a ghost? Ha ha. Well, my prior talk contrib. I shortened a lot; maybe that's what made it seem I was responding to criticism. The thing one always has to remember, is WP is supposed to be a collaborative effort, and I tried to revise my talk postings in that spirit.

As you alluded to originally, in this article like many, the problem isn't so much lack of collaboration as lack of sustained interest. People make a one-off contribution to the article, or hit and run criticism in remarks, and then just disappear.

Just when I got your message, I was actually working on adding back a section on the "controversy," now added. This was in part the result of some info in Miller I hadn't read before. What do you think about the controversy issue--include or don't include? Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is an important point. Might be a little wordy, but it should stay. I made a minor edit that you should look at to make sure its right. Ckruschke (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laestadianism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

National Socialist Underground (your questions and edits)

Thank you for correcting my language glitches. - To answer some of your questions: the modus operandi of the NSU was to do their murders and bank-robberies in a hit-and-run style. Usually they hired a camper van. Then they approached their targets on mountain bikes. Afterwards they weathered out the hot pursuit (encirclement) by the police forces in that camper van. - Two kinds of weapons had been used. Mainly that silenced Ceska (which now could be traced back to a vendor in Switzerland, according to reliable reports on swiss and german public TV) and a converted italian Starting pistol (i.e. that kind of gadget used for launching in sports events; they did some kind of tinkering to upgrade it for firing live ammo). - Two more heads of the Offices for the Protection of the Constitution at state level had to resign during the main time since my last edit. - The trial against the last surviving member of the terror-trio, Beate Zschäpe, had been posponed over a scandal about the admittance of press-correspondents and is now due to start next month. I hope this might answer your questions. - My main aim here had been mainly to provide good reliable english references. - Sorry, I had some very unpleasant experiences on WP (bullying and obstructive filibustering). Therefore I'm not active anymore. (My user-name then had been User:CaffeineCyclist, besides many edits as IP 46.xxx.) - Greetings from Germany. and I hope this answers your questions. --176.6.140.52 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi former user:CaffeineCyclist! Thanks for your remarks and for your excellent contributions, specifically to this article. I wish there was some way to contact you. I'm sorry to hear about your negative experiences that led you to retire. You are for sure not alone in this regard. I think the WP experiment has been a limited success for a whole lot of users. IMHO there needs to be better oversight (or I should say actual oversight) of editors and administrators who push an agenda contrary to WP's stated objective, especially to WP:NPOV. Hopefully, the system will eventually get fixed; if not, it will slide (further) into irrelevance, especially in certain subject categories. Kind regards, Paavo273 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Links to some Wikipedia sites

Wikipedia talk:Role of Jimmy Wales --- Wikipedia:Administrators --- Wikipedia:Ignore all rules --- Wikipedia:Competence is required --- Wikipedia:List of policies -- Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Paavo273 Complaints

(copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27/Incidents) #Complaint:_Request_for_Reversal_of_Warning_issued_to_User:Paavo273_as_abuse_of_administrative_discretion_by_User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

Nothing of substance here likely to lead to admin action, except perhaps a boomerang. OP warned by MBisanz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Complaint: Abuse of administrative position by Administrator User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page & request for relief. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, a.k.a. Fut. Perf ☼ at Continuation War and its talk page 1. Complainant User:Paavo273 (C-Pvo) requests AdminFutPerf's self-described "unusual" special findings and editorial content rulings, especially of "consensus of sources"--all made under color of administrative authority[b ] constituting gross, prejudicial, reversible error--be rolled back; that AdminFutPerf’s subsequent dictating the terms of discussion [c ] in Talk:Continuation War in violation of Wikipedia dispute resolution policy be noted as a violation or stricken; that ordinary WP dispute resolution process be allowed to run its course; and, finally, that AdminFutPerf be blocked from further rulings on Finno-Soviet and Baltic issues, as AdminFutPerf has shown clear bias in favor of the Sovietist perspective, (Why is there a WP article for Russophobia but not Finnophobia?), while expressing disdain for or ignoring the conventional Western view, which is clearly represented in the Continuation War article alongside the Finnish and Sovietist perspectives. Another reasonable possibility is that AdminFutPerf merely repeated false allegations of others and did not even read the article. 2. C-Pvo respectfully requests to know: Is there a prior connection between AdminFutPerf and User:Paul Siebert and/or between AdminFutPerf and User:YMB29? 3. C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo [c ] (bottom half of new diff. paragraph) which appears to establish a new, low standard for WP research and to send a message to a particular user that a Google keyword search any eight-year-old can perform is that new standard. Real research, C-Pvo humbly suggests, is based on possessing and understanding the entire scholarly source or a substantial part of it enough to have understood and analyzed the reasoned basis for what you are citing. The CW article, C-Pvo asserts, for the most part reflects serious scholarly research (as far as can be determined at present) whereas the lists of sources cited in the talk page, especially the list by YMB29 [z] like the original citation for the “Soviet victory” result [u] are only bits and pieces. 4. If the disinterested WP administrative community should find AdminFutPerf's "unusual" editorial content rulings authorized by WP administrative procedure, C-Pvo respectfully requests in the alternative, firstly, that AdminFutPerf specifically OUT these alleged supporting sources and that thence a full impartial hearing be conducted by the disinterested admin. community within the framework of the sourced CW article content that has been hashed out over time, rather than merely simplistic count-up-my-sources treatment now endorsed by AdminFutPerf. (In this case, about half the mini-cites, i.e., “Finnish surrender” are unsupportable given the undisputed facts in the article. [y] The remaining mini-cites from the Google search stating Soviet Victory refer to a contention covered in depth in the article, [x] , [w] , [e] , etcetera.) 5. C-Pvo argues (and has argued), e.g., [ee], [ff] , that the infobox is not a proper area for separate research, especially when a body of vetted, well-established sources exists in the article. Complainant would especially appreciate an administrative ruling on this particular issue. 6. Finally, C-Pvo, the complainant, alternately avers, in direct response to AdminFutPerf's "unusual" special findings and rulings, that when taken as a whole, contrary to Admin. FutPer’s snap rulings, the CW article does not depict a Soviet victory as against Finland, unless at most a very narrowly qualified one. Soviet treatment of very many other, nearby countries as discussed in subsection “Buffer Zones” [j], (even as filtered through the Soviet perspective) and Assessment [e] are especially telling of the entire lack of any unqualified Soviet victory when placed in context. (See also, especially, introduction [f] and background [g] as well as [h] and Motives… [i] ). The article does not allege unqualified Soviet victory. 7. No Consensus on what victory even meant: Many reputable sources (See also Winter War) cited in the CW article (including [e] ), state the USSR had like intentions for Finland as for the many other whole countries whose entire “absorption” or enforced communist puppet-government installation the USSR “required” as buffer zones. [j], As such, the very meaning of victory is not settled, and therefore in the humble opinion of the complainant, unqualified victory objectively cannot stand as a result. The infobox template guideline [r] specifies the result as optional and allows, “In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used.” Complainant respectfully requests admins and other discussion-participants identify any personal connection or bias regarding the subject matter. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for injunction, rollback and blocking from Finn-Soviet and Baltic articles of User:Paul Siebert 1. I, Complainant User:Paavo273 (Pvo) request revert/rollback for User:Paul Siebert’s edits to the Winter War article [z] and others, whereby Paul Siebert, apparently taking heart from AdminFutPerf’s self-described “unusual” ruling (alleged in separate complaint above to be gross error), has been changing other wars’ infobox results (on the basis that the rules allow no other choice) with no discussion whatsoever on the relevant wars’ talk pages, e.g., see Talk:Winter War. I further request a block against Paul Siebert from editing privileges for all Finno-Soviet wars, battles, and related issues, as he has shown a clear contempt, bordering on anti-Finnishness, for the mainstream Finnish and non-Marxist Western positions. 2. Paul Siebert complained and threatened me for changing and declining to self-revert an infobox result to the Continuation War, even though my change had followed discussion among other parties at Talk:Continuation War on the exact subject. 3. It is my contention that Paul Siebert’s discussion in Talk:Continuation War and subsequent edits misrepresent the infobox result parameters; it amounts to forcing a cookie-cutter approach on the infobox that was never intended. See template [a] (“result optional”) and discussion [b] In addition, User:YMB29 cites a lack of consensus among the infobox developers [c], which if still current, makes it only a nonbinding guideline altogether. In either case the infobox parameters clearly state result as optional. 4. Despite all this, Paul Siebert, taking license, in part from AdminFutPerf’s decision (“[W]e can renew this discussion, and follow the way outlined by Fut. Perf.”) [d] (bottom of diff), which I am seeking to have set aside in a separate complaint above, still insists, "[I]f you think the infobox page is misleading, try to fix it first. Unless it has been done, let's stisk (sic) with the standards.” [e] 5. Another point of complaint: Why is Paul Siebert quoting in Talk:Continuation War a long reference [g] (bottom of diff), in any event contradicted by the article, about the Winter War? These are two discrete conflicts, whose main common thread is Finland trying to preserve its existence. (See Winter War and separately Continuation War.) 6. Paul Siebert has noted the “we” Wikipaedians guideline and admonished others to focus on content and not personalities [f] but has himself been willing to use ad hominem attacks [g]; practically in the same breath as promoting "our" Wikipedia, alleges to know as prevaricating darkness another user's heart, ("Please, do not pretend you didn't oppose to (sic) the word "victory" in the infobox before.")[h], never mind that "limited victory" is all this other user has ever argued for,[1], [2], [3], etcetera, in fact long before Paul Siebert entered the discussion.; and has shown a general unwillingness to see another side. Such rigid inflexibility and hyper-adherence to perceived WP procedures, assuming good faith by Paul Siebert, appear to evince an overt hostility to those who would disagree with him, and possible personal issues with Finnishness as a whole. Paul Siebert appears to not be satisfied that the Sovietist side is well represented in the article. 6. Finally, while it’s not important that English WP users' English be perfect or even good, it should be coherent. The English of Paul Siebert is normally excellent, but I would propose a change to the following (I thought at first he was talking about a political party) [h], perhaps something like, "Anticipating possible accusations of bias (He anticipated aptly), I would inform pro-Finnish users that I intend (or am intending) to fix such errors in other articles too." Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Complaint: Request for Reversal of Warning issued to User:Paavo273 as abuse of administrative discretion by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise User:Paavo273 * User:Future Perfect at Sunrise I respectfully request that the warning issued to me for “disrupting” by AdminFutPerf be rescinded. I contend that AdminFutPerf's and User:Paul Siebert's actions described in this and my other complaints demonstrate either Finnophobia or naked promotion by illicit means of their own political bias. I humbly allege that acting either coincidentally [aa ] or in concert users AdminFutPerf and Paul Siebert (See separate complaints) have themselves disrupted the talk page and short-circuited the established WP:dispute resolution process. I incorporate by reference my two above complaints, one against AdminFutPerf and the other against Paul Siebert, as grounds to rescind the warning. Additionally, I humbly contend that the warning issued by AdminFutPerf, later declared to be based on “walls of text,” “extraneous material,” and “filibustering” is false and a bald attempt to silence views opposed to his own. At this hyperlink is my longest copy: [bb ] and there were a couple other shorter ones also exactly on point, where YMB29 was complaining to his mediator in a related case about the Continuation War talk page and another where YMB29 and another user were arguing about the same exact infobox result. (Now that I know how to use hyperlinks, I realize it would be simpler and shorter to provide one of those for each of the diffs on the other pages, but there was absolutely no mass copying or filibuster, an outrageous and as to my alleged malicious intent, also libelous accusation. The entire CW talk page immediately prior to AdminFutPerf’s cleanup, including the my alleged misdeeds can be seen if you scroll down from this diff.: [rr ], and I request impartial, disinterested administrative review. As to the defamatory claim of filibustering, a review of the relevant talk page diff [rr ], will reveal, on the contrary, that despite a fusillade of false rules violation accusations directed at me from user YMB29 and later Paul Siebert, I whenever possible assumed good faith and tried to steer the discussion back to content, just e.g., [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. On his user page AdminFutPerf boasts, “This user takes the definition of admin abuse to a new level," and he links to an “article” ( [ss] ridiculing, mocking people who disagree with his rulings. Complainant Pvo would submit that if this decision by AdminFutPerf and the subject of the other complain against him are indicative of his body of actions as a whole, there are good grounds to complain of rogue administrative abuse. If he wishes to be the next Rupert Murdoch or Katherine Graham or even a mini-Murdoch, he should start his own media empire rather than commandeering Wikipedia. I do not believe the Libertarian über-genius internet innovator from the American South state of Alabama had this in mind when he created the people’s encyclopaedia, not either a fawning Sovietized infobox version of history that contradicts article sources, nor a short-circuiting of dispute resolution processes (See my separate complaints.) I wonder how many other users have become victim to preemptive scorn and ridicule from this administrator pushing his own agenda. I have no history of administrative sanctions, and a general caution to the group against edit-warring would have in my opinion been appropriate. Your consideration is appreciated. Respectfully submitted by Paavo273 (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC) I hope you are kidding, yes? The Banner talk 00:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Being that this user posted three consecutive threads here (which I had to divide into subsections), calling for the relief of adminship of a respected sysop and the block of another user; I don't think this report will be taken very seriously at all. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 01:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC) tl;dr much? Anyone wish to summarize? Just from what I can see (not looking at diffs), Paavo is over-exaggerating quite a bit... gwickwiretalkedits 01:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Plus, when you realize that there wasn't anything really bad done by any of the two complained about, it's only a content dispute. gwickwiretalkedits 01:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I stopped reading when I got to this: "C-Pvo also humbly requests that AdminFutPerf’s contributions be made in plain English rather than the hyper-technical mumbo jumbo". I would humbly request that you format your complaint in concise, plain English. It would make it much easier on the admins here, many of whom have limited time and are not fast readers. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Not just any content dispute... This has been through mediation twice, one which I presided over at MedCab, and another one at MedCom. I think it's probably in need of administrative intervention of some sort, but I'm not sure exactly what that should be as I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC) I have warned him at User_talk:Paavo273#Warning. MBisanz talk 01:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC) With your background, you could at least give some credit for the hilarious nature of the format :-) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC) My quick skim of the above chose "As to the defamatory claim of filibustering..." as the highlight. Perhaps someone with knowledge of the dispute might like to check if any topic bans should be recommended (has it gone that far?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Well, if this is a regular tactic for Paavo, it is definitely disruptive per WP: WALLOFTEXT and WP: MWOT. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 02:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)My quick skim of the above gave me a headache and thoughts of storms of boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC) This has already been rejected by Arbcom. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 02:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning

You have made a disruptive edit at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint:_Request_for_Reversal_of_Warning_issued_to_User:Paavo273_as_abuse_of_administrative_discretion_by_User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise. If you do not reduce your request from 1,996 words to no more than 200 words, I will block you until such time as you agree to reduce your edits to a non-disruptive length. MBisanz ^talk 01:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Reiter, How Wars End, page 138, full paragraph 1

“As forecast by the [war information] theory, the fear of rising costs of fighting pushed Stalin to accept a limited war outcome with Finland, rather than pursue absolute victory. It is possible that the successful D-Day landings of June 1944 encouraged Stalin to settle with Finland quickly so as to permit a rapid march on Berlin. Further, part of the limited war arrangement was the commitment by Finland to use its own military forces to expel the hundreds of thousands of German troops stationed in Finnish territory. This the Finns did, at the expense of some 1,000 Finnish dead and 3,000 wounded, thereby further freeing up Soviet resources for the drive to Berlin, as well as eliminating any possibility of renewed Finnish-German cooperation. Moscow also saw that imposing foreign-imposed regime change on Finland might be prohibitively costly, because the Finnish Communists were small in number and weak by 1944.” Paavo273 (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hello, Paavo273. If you use your sandbox you don't have to fill your talk page with tests and bits and pieces of text you want to save for later use. And you can create more than one sandbox page by numbering them (sandbox2, sandbox3 and so on). Just a friendly tip. Thomas.W (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Longer version--Request to Appeal Special Finding of Admin.Fut.Perf rel Infobox Result Consensus for Continuation War

Statement by Paavo273 I request appeal to reverse the content blocking actions of Administrator Fut.Perf. ☼ at Continuation War (also see Talk:Continuation War) and undo the warning to User talk:Paavo273 by Fut.Perf. ☼.

Admin. Fut.Perf. made at least three special findings of fact contravening established WP resolution procedures, namely

* There was a consensus about the infobox result.

* Result was "Soviet victory."

* Assigned special weight to sources that he says establish Soviet victory without citing any of the sources, only "based on literature cited so far."

This administrative determination of editorial content, without due process, I believe violates allowed WP administrative function. However, *IF* the committee determines that this is allowable action by an administrator, I ask for a hearing *on the merits*. I don't believe Fut.Pef. has thoroughly (and thus fairly) evaluated the material, nor correctly summarized what has taken place on the talk page, and I am prepared to concisely outline these to committee. I request appeal only within the narrow content-decision of Fut.Perf. I also humbly submit that user comments from users (regardless of the educational level) who only assert their position without providing meaningful grounds for it are not proper basis for deciding content disputes, even as evaluated by Admin. FutPef. I don't believe FutPerf’s warning accurately or fairly depicts or reflects the nature of my contributions to the talk page which a fair reading *would* reveal. Finally the article is rich in content and is a good article. Examination of the sources in the article rather than relying on unsupported assertions of certain editors would lead to a different result from the one Admin Fut.Perf. has unilaterally taken. This is a much more subtle (but not terribly complicated) issue than the words, "Soviet victory". The well-written article itself provides a lot of insight, and I would appreciate the opportunity to illustrate that. Paavo273 (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is an instance of the lone administrator not only supervening the editorial process and effectively preventing future resolution of underlying content issues on a level playing field, toward NPOV. Appellant contends administrator has misused administrative powers in an editorial role. I'd be grateful for an opportunity to be heard before the committee. (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

More grounds for my Appeal Request--additional admin. takeover of editorial discussion at CW:Talk --ongoing misuse of administrative process

To just repeat words "Soviet victory" ad infinitim doesn't prove it. Discussion should be about analyzing sources. Reason this is so important is you have an article with sources that has been hashed out that is now being contradicted by the Sovietist-placed infobox result. The contentiousness revolves around what Soviet victory *meant* and whether the USSR ever intended to take over Finland. That is a significant part of what all the acrimony is about and why it is so important. I'm not sure if Admin. Fut.Perf. was aware of that when he made his special ruling on content (which he continues to actively promote in CW:Talk today) that basically assumes the Sovietist view, not only *of* victory, but by deduction--what victory meant. It's much more subtle and significant than two words.

I believe this is highly prejudicial, ongoing, reversible error.

Rel warning, I am prepared to offer compelling evidence that I am not primarily the guilty party in the "disruption". If allowed I will show that I continued to assume good faith when none was shown in return and that I many times offered suggestions for finding a solution. Paavo273 (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC) (content reduced at request of Clerk Hahc21; moved to Paavo273 (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal by P273 February 10--Response to Admin’s and others' statements

A. I have been abused by AdminFP and this process. New allegations "walls of text" (my single copying of a discussion exactly on point from another talk site to try stimulate discussion that wasn't happening at CW talk) and "blindly copied" and "filibustering" are latest in long list of various false allegations made to kill my attempt at meaningful engagement on the merits--including OR, synthesis, tag teaming, dubious source, canvassing, sock puppet (‘had to look that one up), etc.

B. I and other users trying to provide balance and proportion to the infobox result--which is all this is about--have been attacked, threatened, ridiculed, and finally squelched. Just f/ex.,

• YMB29: (to another user) "You still lack knowledge about this topic. It looks like you are only here to annoy me". -YMB29 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
• Paul Siebert: "Regarding [other user's] proposal, that is nonsense. All (or almost all) wars end with armistice or peace treaties. Playing Captain Obvious with the only goal to conceal the truth (namely, that the USSR won) is hardly acceptable."
• Fut.Perf.: "Please stop the bickering. Yes, it's "our" policy – it is mine, it is yours, and it is also Paul Siebert's, because we are all Wikipedians, for better or worse, so we all have the right to call it "ours". Now please either say something constructive on the topic, or say nothing at all." Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC

I propose, esteemed learned administrators, that these and so very much else on CW talk page in the last ten days (and last seven YEARS) demonstrate nothing like good faith or an effort to resolve a disagreement; on the contrary, it is the embodiment of the spirit of totalitarianism and terror in action.

WP "Newspeak," part of AdminFP's lingo to refer to power he asserted over editorial content and eliminating whatever fledgling opposition existed to the Soviet view is apropos word choice as it is an allusion to Orwell's depiction of the quality of information exchange in the Soviet Union.

QUERY: When did the Soviet version of history become the mainstream one and the only accepted one at WP? I am NOT against inclusion of the Soviet viewpoint, and it is well-represented in the CW article, but why is that the one favored as mainstream? Why the short circuiting of discussion on the merits and now of democratic process? I don't think this is what the great one himself had in mind for his People's Encyclopaedia.

QUERY: Does anyone on this committee think it would be reasonable to request Admin.Fut.Perf point out or refer to specifically *what* sources whose strength in combination added up to "Soviet victory" consensus, i.e., can you point to some sources in the actual CW article, or is it strictly the sources that YMB29 quoted from his Google search? Or is this as has been evident to me all along, merely AdminFutPerf's courtesy rubber stamping of his brother admin. Paul Siebert's m.o.? This is further suggested to me by the tone used throughout Admin.Fut.Perf's statement by use of words such as apparent and evident, suggesting to me that AdminFutPerf. was relying on someone else's assessment or doing a very quick, superficial perusal.

I believe this is gross error and warrants your hearing. Does any administrator think I should be offered a hearing or is any at least willing to look into my application? Are any neutral administrators willing to read the article, or even just the first and last sections and entertain the thought for a few minutes of whether the copious sources cited there indicate "Soviet victory" before deciding? (Knowledge of Winter War and prior Finnish history helfpul but not essential.)

I would like to say additionally that AdminFP's IMO precipitant action is already bearing illegitimate fruit in what his colleague--who like himself wears two skins, administrator and editor, which each dons and sheds like a chameleon (sometimes neglecting to wear the administrator skin before lecturing or threatening other editors as if they were naughty children)--is doing to other infobox results. Enforcing this cookie-cutter approach to the infobox based on some usually not-enforced template specification is yet another thinly veiled effort to dictate a biased result with no substantive discussion. All readers and especially WP itself loses when capable researchers on this site are discouraged from participating as a result of rushed, biased, or backroom actions of people in administrative authority. Whatever the proper verbiage for CW infobox, it is a unique situation and needs special consideration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Finland is the only country described in CW article section Analysis (sub-heading Soviet buffer zones) "touched" by USSR during World War II and post-war era not either swallowed up by USSR or directly controlled through installation of communist government. If a country is the only one, (or even one of two) out of roughly thirteen countries to not be swallowed up following action with the USSR, I submit that this needs special attention at infobox level, regardless of what some but not all Soviet sources say about the Soviets’ intentions rel Finland. I don’t believe AdminFP’s characterization of this view as Finnish nationalism even minutely represents what the article’s sources, including overall, the Soviet sources, say. (None of the several sources cited in the Analysis subsection Assessment of Soviet Designs... is Finnish. See end of article CW) Paavo273 (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC) (more reductions following clerk's instructions)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests

Hi, Paavo273. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, — Hahc21^talk 05:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Paavo273. Have a nice evening. — Hahc21^talk 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Your request to the Arbitration Committee

I have removed your request to the Arbitration Committee, as it was neither a request for an amendment to nor a clarification about a case. As you appear to be appealing a warning imposed under arbitration enforcement, I suggest you follow the instructions here. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning

You have been disrupting the talk page of Continuation War.

File:Yes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thomas.W (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (Received at my user page; I moved it to my talk page Paavo273 (talk) 08:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Onnen Maa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) )

Tali-Ihantalaa ja muuta

Moi,

Suosittelen - koska sinua selvästi kiinnostaa Suomen suurimpien taistelujen faktuaalisuus - että pidät silmällä esim. Tali-Ihantalan taistelua koskevaa artikkelia, sekä ns. "Fourth Strategic Offensive" (Neuvostoliiton 1944 suurhyökkäystä Suomea vastaan) koskevaa artikkelia. Suomen osalta artikkelien faktuaalisuutta yritetään jatkuvasti vääristellä NL/Venäjä mieliseksi. --82.181.75.48 (talk) 05:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello Paavo, I don't think we've ever interacted before, but I happened to see some of your edits and was impressed with your grammatical skill. I was wondering if you would be willing to look over an article that I've been working on and correct any obvious grammar/prose/diction issues? I've been working on Alexis Bachelot for a while and it is currently a Good Article nominee. Any help would be appreciated! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments

Hi Paavo273, this is just to let you know that removing others' comments, or removing comments of yours which others have replied to, is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia. I've added back the comments that you removed in this edit. If you want, I can archive them instead. Would that be acceptable to you? Also, I can see how my comment formatting could have confused you on this point. The only comments I have formatted have been those of the mediation participants, and that is a special privilege they granted me when they agreed to the ground rules of the mediation. If they hadn't agreed to those ground rules, then I wouldn't have touched their comments. If you want some more information on how to use talk apges, you can have a look at our talk page guidelines. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Quotation marks

Thanks for your excellent and precise corrections to Wikipedia articles. I have one minor correction of my own to your work. Wikipedia has its own manual of style which includes an unusual rule on the use of quotation marks. Please review MOS:LQ. Your changes to James Arthur Ray may have been inconsistent with that rule.[3] In any case, it's a small detail. Since many editors are unfamiliar with that rule it is often violated. I don't want to discourage your efforts, but I thought you might not be aware of it. Carry on.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome! Hello, Paavo273, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Frank Reich. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yatsenyuk Article

moved discussion to the top of page

Lauri

Moved to top of this page

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aimo Lahti may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Saloranta M/26]]. He then improved the [[Mosin Nagant]] rifle by designing the M/27 "Pystykorva" ("[[Spitz]]", named for its foresight guards' resemblance to the dog breed's ears. This rifle was

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juho Kusti Paasikivi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Statesman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the talking page

and don't delete user contributes. The source is perfectly fine with WP:RS you should first take a look at the talking page.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government#Government_lacks_legitimacy

--Wrant (talk) 12:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)