User talk:Vuo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Vuo)
Jump to: navigation, search

Quick links

I'm a Finnish guy, with a M.Sc. Tech. in chemical technology.


...for your contribution to the article Human!Chrisrus (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shinas (ferry)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Shinas (ferry), and it appears to include material copied directly from

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How to post an externally verifiable proof[edit]

Hi vuo I am the author of the undone fine chemical article due to an uncertain copyright situation. I have now managed to get the admission from Wiley in pdf to post it on Wikipedia. I cannot post a page at Hikal as you suggested. How can I provide an externally verifiable proof accapted by Wikipedia? Thanks --PeterRPollak (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Good catch on the fluoride nonsense in the MAOI article. Thanks! :D Exercisephys (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Party subsidies[edit]

Dear Vuo, if you are still interested in the subject, please check what I have done to your article. Khnassmacher (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


'there's nothing unscientific about photochemistry' I agree but the issue is about 'biophotons' which look to be the pseudoscientific version of photochemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talkcontribs) 23:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


Hei! Ei se valtioneuvoksen titteli salaneuvoksesta periydy vaan vastaavasta valtioneuvoksen tittelistä, jos mistään. Tuo teksti on nyt väärin artikkelissa Valtioneuvos. --Pxos (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I removed the sentence about derivative titles altogether as unsourced and very likely incorrect. --Pxos (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sissi (Finnish light infantry)/ famous sissi troops[edit]

I'll add a longer comment about the matter here; the United States military states that the only groups within United States military that can be called "Special forces" are the United States Army Special Forces (aka. "Green berets") and 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (aka. "Delta Force"), end of discussion. Ape89 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

in addition to the last comment; because US military is strict about the distinction while pretty much everyone else seems to call every American special operations forces -unit just "specia forces" I think it's necessary to use the (more or less-) full name of the "Green berets" when it is the US Army Special Forces that the article/notion in an article is about. Also sorry for the double post. Ape89 (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Varma move[edit]

I'm a bit taken aback by your move of Varma to Varma (name) in order to allow the former to be used as the page for a Finnish company. I'm particularly taken aback given that immediately prior to that move, you left this edit summary elsewhere. Your move was bold but I doubt that it is without controversy, so it might be better to revert and open a discussion. - Sitush (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I understood it so that Varma is an alternate spelling, and as such it should not be primary title of the article in the first place. It appears to be so because a-macron is harder to enter than just 'a'. For instance, I have moved 'Jyrki Jarvilehto' to the correct 'Jyrki Järvilehto', and I doubt anyone would protest. The article appears to list several alternate spellings, of which any could be selected. Furthermore, articles on names are often of the 'Title (name)' pattern. Your comment on the previous edit is unnecessary and has no relation to this issue. (In there, I just happen to have a pet peeve for people deleting content from an article because it doesn't suit their whatever.) --vuo (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not so much an alternate spelling (eg: Brown/Browne, White/Whyte) as a name with a shared theme: India is a country with well in excess of 20 official languages and names there are often based on honorific or caste-related themes: historic transliteration between them is affected also by by recent transliteration from the various scripts to Western alphabets but the pronunciation remains distinct. Given the size of the India/Pakistani etc population and its diaspora, Varma and its variants are incredibly common. I see that you've now created a dab page: that is better but I'm still not entirely convinced. I've got no particular horse in this race: I've no connections to the subcontinent or to Finland etc. I'll have a think. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
You might want to compare to the situation at the Finnish Wikipedia. In particular: --vuo (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've had a long think about this and I am going to be reverting you per WP:COMMONNAME. I don't care what Finnish WP might say, Varma is by far more common as an Indian surname than some insurance outfit. If Finnish WP want to do things differently then that is up to them but, obviously, they've got a systemic bias when it comes to representation of Finland-based articles. I have spoken to someone else about this and they agreed ... but I've forgotten who it was! I'll see if I can dig out that info before reverting, just so that you can see the rationale. - Sitush (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe that Wikipedia has a "bias", or should avoid a "bias", etc.; that's terminology from journalism. It's not the job of Wikipedia to represent things in any sort of an "equal" way, because there's no "airtime" to share; anyone writing "Varma" to the search page has only one click extra effort to choose which page he meant. Having a disambiguation page is an inherently neutral choice. Trying to put "larger" or "more important" things first leads to unavoidable and unnecessary arguments about the hierarchy. Also, WP:COMMONNAME is about another topic, choosing between possible names, not about disambiguation. --vuo (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 :WP:SYSTEMIC? You entire rationale in renaming was that the financial services outfit was better known. Which it is not. - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
My whole argument is that it doesn't matter which is better known. There's no "bias", there's even no need to avoid a "bias". --vuo (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi Vuo, I removed that paragraph because it (especially the second sentence) made no sense. Why would Comecon want to thwart Soviet influence? Heavy Knife (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we keep looking at FL angle[edit]

Your concerns are well taken, but the article needs to not just be written for synth org folks like me, rather it has to include the biochemists (who are actually measuring such angle crystallographically), and it has to be clear how it is similar to but different from the BD. As it stands, the figure is so confusing, the legend has to become enormous to make clear to readers what the angle actually means. Also, it has to be clear that while Bürgi, Dunitz, et al measured angles in crystal structures to get this whole field going, with the FL, the numeric angle values of the trajectories are inferred (based on reaction outcomes and product ratios)—this plus a very little bit of theoretical work. Then there is the confusion engendered on the BD side, that cannot be allowed to spill onto the FL side —"the BD angle is 107 deg", as opposed to 107 in simple systems, and whatever else it might actually be measured to be in any other system studied (e.g., approaching 90 deg in proteases apparently). When you put these explanatory challenges alongside the problem with the image, we are faced with a daunting task. We either parrot what is in undergraduate textbooks (often incorrect); or we are encyclopedic, and write for all, including the laypersons, and those interested most in chemistry, biochemistry, crystallography, etc.

Bottom line, I want your fine mind involved in this. My vote would be we improve the FL image, then begin to discuss your specific objections to the "wall of text". The real concept and breadth is not as easy as a short lede and one picture (though with a good picture, a better lede could easily be written, before getting into the details). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Flippin out[edit]

Really do want you involved, to help make this practically useful. Ping me any time with ideas—especially, if you have a good secondary source you you want to discuss, or the like. ALWAYS WELCOME. (Look back in a couple of days, new images going in.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been involved in this for a while. As it stands the article is quite far from being a general text, and it would take consirable expertise to bring it to that point, which I admit I don't have. Originally, I got involved as a student of Koskinen, but I haven't been there for half a decade. --vuo (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

re Fm and Md acac[edit]

Yup, I'm officially not thinking. Thank you for correcting me! Double sharp (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Finnish language in Soviet ruble article[edit]

You reverted my edit with explanation "Finnish language, not Finland; Finnish was a language of the Soviet Union also"
Well, the part is in a table with this just above it: The name of the currency in the languages of the 15 republics, in the order they appeared in the banknotes:
Finland was not a republic of Soviet Union, nor was Finnish name of ruble in the banknotes (as you can see from the reverse of 1961 ruble note in the infobox).
Of Finnish being language of Soviet Union, that should belong to Languages of the Soviet Union. Which claims (without source) that Finnish was "not generally considered a language of the USSR", but was official in Karelia. (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the idea was that Finnish was an official language in Karelia. Since the Soviet Union was an ethnically diverse country, a dividing line on which languages to include and not include is always arbitrary. However, I think it would be better to err on the side of providing more information than less, since the number of languages is still fairly limited. Finnish could be counted as a language in which native use of the words "rupla" and "kopeekka" within the Soviet Union, in official contexts, occurred. It was not a "foreign" language. --vuo (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
But is clearly said before the table those are the languages which appeared in banknotes. Finnish did not, so it should be removed from the table. And it also says "in the languages of the 15 republics", and with Finnish there are 16, not 15. (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I didn't notice that. In that case, the languages on the banknotes will of course have preferential treatment. --vuo (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Technopolis Oyj[edit]

Hello Vuo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Technopolis Oyj for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. ubiquity (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ural–Altaic languages[edit]

Our edit-warrior is back. — kwami (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sibilant offglide[edit]

Hello Vuo, I have a question about an edit of yours at Talk:Palatalization (phonetics)#Sibilant offglide. Regards, — Sebastian 04:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


This addition to the FL article is the perfect sort of addition I had been hoping to see: [11], and I thank you for it. I would ask though, if at all possible, to make this fully yours—could you go back and choose and insert the best reference or two that supports your point, so that it does not later become seen as OR? I would appreciate it. I could of course choose something, but I would rather wait until you have time, so this edit is fully to your credit. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, in case I have not said, I married a Finn, a Laitinen. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Vaasa (company)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Vaasa (company) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Vuo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So, the chemical substance article[edit] back to being the confusing nonsense it was before August 2015, failing to distinguish between the various meanings of the title term in use, on the objection that my replacement lede was too long and technical (despite solid, scholarly sourcing). That is to say, instead of integrating the solid material into the article, and summarising it for the lede, the same naive lede tripe that had earlier existed there, was returned and so continues to exist.

As well, in your contributions, I see you have part and parcel added material without source, to the definitions section—paragraphs long material in fact. So, I give up. We clearly have differing understandings in terms of what is meant to follow WP:VERIFY, and to make these articles excellent. We now have a lead that is easier to read, but that is inaccurate to the uses the readers will find in their general reading, and want explained. And we have a definitions section, while accurate in large parts, that is "just trust me" material, based on your expertise, creating a trajectory for that section that will be fine until you are gone, in which case, the next editor, who thinks they know the field, changes it, likewise, without sources, since that is the pattern that has been set.

We are not editing the same encyclopedia, so we cannot edit the same articles. I, despite significant expertise, do not add material from that expertise, but only add material from sources. And I do not let anything that is incorrect or inaccurate stand just to be readable, and so an article looks good. So we part company. Know that no one anywhere, with any chemistry expertise, will sent entry level students to this article, as it is currently exists. We have written it to please ourselves, and its real utility is thus constrained. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY --vuo (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)