User talk:Peltimikko/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

Spacepol

I understand that you want the

AFD process.--DLandTALK
15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Let's protect the obvious spam (see the discussion page of Spacepol and the website of the "company"). --Peltimikko 16:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Just nominate it for deletion and it will soon be gone (if you are correct that it's spam). If you need help nominating, I'll be glad to guide you through the AfD procedure.--DLandTALK 16:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my revert of your edit to Jokela school shooting

I know Auvinen was not a hero. I personally think the article devotes too much space to him already. I reverted your edit because I had a difficult time understanding what you changed at first glance, and your edit summary of "editing and profile" didn't help much.[1] The section on Auvinen looked much longer. I noticed there were two Responses to the incident sections after your edit and I also thought the headings Lonely, quiet and above-average student and Home-made movie were unnecessary. After now analyzing the change, I see that you didn't alter any text (which was a concern of mine), you re-grouped sentences and you also added "He was a top-student in history classes and had extreme political opinions. According to his friends, his behaviour changed lately to even more lonely and quiet."

I'm sorry for reverting your work. I should have spent more time analyzing what you changed instead of reverting your edit out of fear that something would slip past. I think a more detailed edit summary would help other editors understand what changes you make — in this case, something like "re-arranged some sentences, added 'He was a top-student..'". When making edits, it may be easier for other editors to see what is changed if you change a few things at a time instead of all at once. Thank you for contacting me. I think your ability to translate finnish is a great asset to Wikipedia. --Pixelface 07:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. --Peltimikko 07:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No vandalism i want it to be fair and square

So please dont call me a vandal again ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.195.14.243 (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Ethnic Issues in Finland stub-article and Finland page

As a recent contributor to the above stub-article, I agree with you that it offers very little value and ought to be merged with the larger, fully referenced Finland page. Please feel free to proceed with the merge. Causteau (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Johan Bäckman

Hi,

please don't overdo it. We don't want the article to read like an attack piece by crazed anti-Bäckman activist Wikipedians. We want the article to read like an encyclopædic article casting fair light to Bäckman's crazed activities. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

ok. Peltimikko (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Truth Commission

Thanks for your message.

I didn't realise I was edit warring but I've left messages asking people to take the dispute to the talk page. My edits are reverted either without comment or with minimal comment. I think the article is quite unbalanced and am trying to use more neutral language. It is most frustrating when people simply revert this and refuse to discuss it. Is there any way to have this checked by a mdoerator? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 19:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article itself does not have massive problems. There could be mentioned denial laws in different European countries (
Laws against Holocaust denial). But the plans for denial laws in the EU-level should be accomplished with better source than two years old online news. If I were you, I would try a new approach. Maybe opinions of Russian media? Try to focus on reputable news sources like Kommersant, Novaya Gazeta, RIA Novosti (mostly good), Argumenty i Fakty and even The Moscow Times. Peltimikko (talk
) 19:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia

It is a waste of time attempting to NPOV a POVFORK, as it impossible to achieve any balance. That is why it is policy to delete POVFORKS. Wait for the conclusion of the AfD discussion. --

talk
) 21:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Two way sword -problem. And anyway, all the materials are from the Human rights in Estonia article. Peltimikko (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for Human rights in Estonia

Wikiproject Estonia to achieve that status - and certainly far more important then the first one. -- Sander Säde
09:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. Peltimikko (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Human rights in Estonia

Updated DYK query On June 16, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Human rights in Estonia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Foreign support in the Winter War

Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk
) 20:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

re:DYK nomination for Aerial warfare in the Winter War

I see that you've been working a lot on the Winter War article lately, and that's a very good thing. I, for one, appreciate that you're creating sub-articles to the Winter War main article. However, you say that in regards to this specific article (Aerial warfare in the Winter War) you've added "more than half of new stuff". According to the DYK rules prose content has to be expanded fivefold in order for an article to be considered new. The people over at Wikipedia talk:Did you know can explain this better than me. Manxruler (talk) 07:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

length of articles

While I am the first to support calls for concise articles, the size as calculated by the edit history is only a very rough yard stick. To much depends on the space taken up in the raw version (but not the article page!) by wiki-code. Look at this single edit which added a wooping 16kb without adding a single line to the article. A much better evaluation is to count the words/lines/pages of actual written text in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That may be, Xeeron, at least for some purposes... but History of Christianity is still way... way... too long.

Peltimikko, have created articles on each the centuries of Christian History. The plan is— in due time— to cut out some excess from the

History of the Roman Catholic Church is also over 100 KB
) by linking/hat-noting certain sections to each new Christian history article.

Please feel free to join me and help. I also invited folks at

Talk
18:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian history
BC C1
C2
C3
 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10
C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21

Unfortunately, I have not studied a university theology so much, that I would be an expert in the Christian history. Though I edited/rewrited the New Testament article in the Finnish Wikipedia (and it was promoted as a Good article) and I also created the article of History of Islam in the Finnish Wikipedia. The History of Christianity is just too wide subject right now or maybe I just need a right book from a library. Peltimikko (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

photo

Finnish soldiers displaying the skins of the Soviet soldiers who were allegedly eaten by their own troops at Maaselkä in 1942.

Hi, found this pic, not sure where it would fit but it sure illustrates that the Russians had a hard time fighting the Finns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs) 16 July 2009

I am aware of these pictures and I have I red those some years ago, when the Finnish authorities finally decided to realize these in public. Man-eatings were only few exceptions, so they are not really needed in the Winter War article. Peltimikko (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New Schoolbooks of Russia

Interesting development. I am not interested in Russian news, so I didn't know that. I will look into this. - Altenmann >t 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

First three from this google search:

I am not sure whether it warrants a separate article and what would be its title. - Altenmann >t 21:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember an attempt to start
Soviet_historiography#Influence_of_the_Soviet_historiography_in_modern_Russia). Also, I think Vecrumba (talk · contribs) might have a lot of insight in Soviet historiography. ---- Sander Säde
12:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Some new developments - [2] (very bad Google translation). --Sander Säde 08:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Explain and 3rr warning

Please explain how a law to imprison people for supporting Nazism can be equated to historic revisionism. It has nothing to do with attempting to change historic views. Also, you are close to breaking the

WP:3RR rule and you could be blocked if you continue. LokiiT (talk
) 09:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The United Russia draft law is a part of the Kremlin's attempt to rewrite the history back to "Soviet truths" (and part of its latest information war against former USSR countries). As written in
Historical Truth Commission: "Critics say the official view from Moscow glosses over Soviet-era crimes.". The modern Russian has not recognized its crimes in former Warsaw pact countries during and after the WW II, unlike Germany. And 3RR: 1) my part: two is not three 2) and your part: [3] [4] [5] = 3. Peltimikko (talk
) 10:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
You haven't answered my question. Regarding the law specifically, what does it have to do with rewriting history back to "Soviet truths" as you put it? There's no pro-Nazi history in Russia in the first place and never was, so this law would simply prevent such views from prevailing in the future. LokiiT (talk) 04:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dashes

Sino, Russo, Franco, Anglo, Greko, Austro, Finno, etc. all should use only - (hyphen) as they are not independent words and act more-or-less as adjectives. However, Japan(ese), Russia(n), etc. need – (en-dash). hope that clarifies. Renata (talk) 04:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Peltimikko (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Soviet diplomat Boris Shtein

The Russian version of his article says that he was arrested in 1952 when Stalin became suspicious over some of the high-ranking ethnic Jews in the Soviet government, so I would say so. There seems to be a number of sources purporting Shtein's Jewish ancestry on the Russian internet, so I'll try to add some scholarly references if I can get at them.

Best,

PasswordUsername (talk
) 21:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I also think we should anglicize the surname as Shteyn per

PasswordUsername (talk
) 21:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now that I've combed through a bunch of websites, there's lots of interesting tidbits on Shtein (many of them in English, too), but the only material claiming that Shtein was Jewish comes from ultranationalists like the viciously antisemitic

PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Also the name "Boris Stein" is used, at least in Finnish sources, and one German source. And the question of his jewish roots remains without answer. Peltimikko (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging

Re [7]: I'm not sure how the tag would be useful as everyone who is working on the article is aware of the problem. Instead of tagging, you should give suggestions on how to shorten the article on the talk page or

Offliner (talk
) 06:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right. I started
discussion. Peltimikko (talk
) 06:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Format

Your “Update” isn't really appropriate as a reply to my Socratic questions to JBsupreme, but is appropriate as a reply to the comment which provoked those questions. I have therefore interpretted it as such and outdented it accordingly. If you mean it as a reply to me, then I apologize for the change, but would ask why in the world you gave such a reply. —SlamDiego←T 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Your change is ok. I replied generally, not particularly to anyone. Peltimikko (talk) 08:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CSD tag

alternate
16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

an alternate account... Peltimikko (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is an alternate account... but I don't see what relevance that has to the article.
alternate
 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Estonian non-aggression treaty

Hi Peltimikko,

The answer to your question is available at

Baltic-Soviet_relations#Non-aggression_treaties. The exact date was May 4, 1932.--Termer (talk
) 05:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stalin's speech on August 19, 1939

When I looked for sources on that account I found that they were suprisingly scarse. I'll try to find something, although it may pose some problems, because simple seach using obvious keywords gives almost nothing. One way or the another, serious historians seem not to pay attention to this speech.

I reverted you recent edits of the Timeline of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact article. I did it because the subject is too controversal. G. Roberts devoted a special article to this issue, where he demonstrated, based on the extensive analysis of de-classified Soviet archives, that Merekalov's visit was dictated by purely economical reason (fulfillment of Skoda contracts signed between the Soviets and the Czechs before German occupation), and he was not authorized to make any political statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Stalin's speech I found the following.

"Weeks quotes heavily from a speech which Stalin allegedly gave at a meeting of the Politburo on 19 August 1939 just prior to the conclusion of the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact. Stalin talked about playing off the French and British against the Germans, undermining the Western democracies and coming in at the end of a long war to spread world revolution (Appendix, pp. 171-173). Weeks should have thought this document too good to be true. He attributes its to Georgi Dimitrov's diary, but it is nowhere to be found there. In fact, it turned up in French military intelligence documents captured by the Red Army at the end of World War II. It is not clear whether the 'original' document, obtained by the French 2e Bureau, was written in French or in Russian.' On 28 November 1939 the Paris daily Le Temps first published a Havas despatch from Geneva quoting Stalin's comments. The story caused a 'sensation', according to Ya. Z. Surits, the Soviet polpred in Paris. Both Le Temps and Havas were semi-official government sources. Surits linked the release of the 'document' to domestic anti-communist politics." Unlike Weeks, Pons is more cautious in assessing the authenticity of Stalin's 'speech' (pp. 190-191). The forgery of Soviet government documents was good business prior to World War II. Weeks appears to be the last in a long line of buyers of such material, though surprisingly Pons also lends it some credibility. In a recent article the Russian historian Sergei Z. Sluch notes that the 'speech' has a long history and many variants, and he argues persuasively that it is a fake. Surely, Sluch writes, historians have enough legitimate materials to study without indulging in 'sensationalism' based on counterfeit documents." (Review: Soviet Foreign Policy in the West, 1936-1941: A Review Article Author(s): Michael Jabara Carley Reviewed work(s): Stalin and the Inevitable War, 1936-1941 by Silvio Pons Stalin's Other War: Soviet Grand Strategy, 1939-1941 by Albert L. Weeks Source: Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 56, No. 7 (Nov., 2004), pp. 1081-1093)

From this fragment we can see that this speech was published by neither the "Swiss journal Revue de Droit International" or by the "French newsagency Haves". It was published by Le Temps, but only partially. I also found another source, the Raak's article (Author(s): R. C. Raack Reviewed work(s): Was the USSR Planning to Attack Germany in 1941? by Joseph Bradley Source: Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1999), pp. 491-493) where he writes:

"Stalin looked to Hitler's war to bring chaos and revolution, preparing the way for the entry of the Red Army into the fray on behalf of the revolutionaries. He mentioned that plan in a 1925 speech, and iterated it in his alleged speech to the Politburo of 19 August 1939 (which, to my knowledge, has gone wholly unmentioned outside of Europe, except by me, since its rediscovery in a Russian archive and republication by T. S. Bushueva in Novyi Mir in December 1994)."

I believe this fragment confirms my conclusion that western historians ignore this speech, probably due to the authenticity issues. This fragment also explains who was Bushueva: she was a person who published this document in the Novy Mir magazine. These two articles answer the question why only the French "translation" (in actuality an alleged translation, because it is unclear if the Russian original existed in actuality) was available for her: this document was found among French military documents seized by the Germans and, after that, by the Soviets.

That is all I was able to find, I believe that will be helpful. If you need additional quotes from these two articles feel free to ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. By contrast with the 19 August speech, Stalin's March speech is much more extensively discussed by scholars. When I was trying to find anything regarding your request I found one more interesting source about the March speech. (The Soviet Commissariat of Foreign Affairs and the Czechoslovakian Crisis in 1938: New Material from the Soviet Archives Author(s): Zara Steiner Source: The Historical Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Sep., 1999), pp. 751-779)

"The Soviet leadership anticipated a war between the capitalist powers. In 19938, however, such a war would have only magnified the dangers the Soviets faced. It was more prudent to 'wait and see'. It is against this background that Stalin's speech to the i8th party congress on Io March I 939 should be read. The dictator had no doubt about the dangers of the present situation and the need for the Soviet Union to follow the most realistic policy possible. The USSR had to be free in her foreign policy, neither with the aggressors nor with the non-aggressors. In the war between the imperialist powers, the USSR had to 'observe caution and not let our country be drawn into conflicts by warmongers urging others to take the chestnuts out of the fire '.64 Though the whole speech was unfriendly towards the West, it did not indicate that Stalin had decided to strike a deal with Germany. The Soviet Union was in a weak and exposed position in the post-Munich period and Stalin, for the moment, had few cards in hand."

I believe, this also may be helpful for you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the right answer was Havas AND Le Temps as it says: "...Le Temps first published a Havas despatch from Geneva". But the quotation is great and I added it as a reference. Hopefully we get more academic quotations. Feel free edit the article.
And about the speech on March: I was wondering should we create the article
18th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party (b)? Maybe you have more quotations? Peltimikko (talk
) 04:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Re: "Actually the right answer was Havas AND Le Temps" The right answer is "Novy Mir" because Havas and Le Temps published just quotes from the speech (if I understand it correctly). BTW, Novy Mir appeared to be available online[8]. Below is a quote from Bushueva (I show only the part of her article that tells about the speech):
"В секретных трофейных фондах Особого архива СССР удалось обнаружить сведения о том, что 19 августа 1939 года, то есть за четыре дня до подписания советско-германского договора о ненападении (пакта Молотова — Риббентропа), Сталин срочно созвал Политбюро и руководство Коминтерна. На этом заседании он выступил с речью, текст которой у нас никогда не публиковался. Через пятьдесят пять лет после этого события Суворов напишет: “Точный день, когда Сталин начал вторую мировую войну, это 19 августа 1939 года”.
О чем же говорил тогда Сталин?
“Вопрос мира или войны вступает в критическую для нас фазу. Если мы заключим договор о взаимопомощи с Францией и Великобританией, Германия откажется от Польши и станет искать “модус вивенди” с западными державами. Война будет предотвращена, но в дальнейшем события могут принять опасный характер для СССР. Если мы примем предложение Германии о заключении с ней пакта о ненападении, она, конечно, нападет на Польшу, и вмешательство Франции и Англии в эту войну станет неизбежным. Западная Европа будет подвергнута серьезным волнениям и беспорядкам. В этих условиях у нас будет много шансов остаться в стороне от конфликта, и мы сможем надеяться на наше выгодное вступление в войну.
Опыт двадцати последних лет показывает, что в мирное время невозможно иметь в Европе коммунистическое движение, сильное до такой степени, чтобы большевистская партия смогла бы захватить власть. Диктатура этой партии становится возможной только в результате большой войны. Мы сделаем свой выбор, и он ясен. Мы должны принять немецкое предложение и вежливо отослать обратно англо-французскую миссию. Первым преимуществом, которое мы извлечем, будет уничтожение Польши до самых подступов к Варшаве, включая украинскую Галицию.
Германия предоставляет нам полную свободу действий в Прибалтийских странах и не возражает по поводу возвращения Бессарабии СССР. Она готова уступить нам в качестве зоны влияния Румынию, Болгарию и Венгрию. Остается открытым вопрос, связанный с Югославией... В то же время мы должны предвидеть последствия, которые будут вытекать как из поражения, так и из победы Германии. В случае ее поражения неизбежно произойдет советизация Германии и будет создано коммунистическое правительство. Мы не должны забывать, что советизированная Германия окажется перед большой опасностью, если эта советизация явится последствием поражения Германии в скоротечной войне. Англия и Франция будут еще достаточно сильны, чтобы захватить Берлин и уничтожить советскую Германию. А мы не будем в состоянии прийти на помощь нашим большевистским товарищам в Германии.
Таким образом, наша задача заключается в том, чтобы Германия смогла вести войну как можно дольше, с целью, чтобы уставшие и до такой степени изнуренные Англия и Франция были бы не в состоянии разгромить советизированную Германию. Придерживаясь позиции нейтралитета и ожидая своего часа, СССР будет оказывать помощь нынешней Германии, снабжая ее сырьем и продовольственными товарами. Но само собой разумеется, наша помощь не должна превышать определенных размеров для того, чтобы не подрывать нашу экономику и не ослаблять мощь нашей армии.
В то же самое время мы должны вести активную коммунистическую пропаганду, особенно в англо-французском блоке и преимущественно во Франции. Мы должны быть готовы к тому, что в этой стране в военное время партия будет вынуждена отказаться от легальной деятельности и уйти в подполье. Мы знаем, что эта работа потребует многих жертв, но наши французские товарищи не будут сомневаться. Их задачами в первую очередь будут разложение и деморализация армии и полиции. Если эта подготовительная работа будет выполнена в надлежащей форме, безопасность советской Германии будет обеспечена, а это будет способствовать советизации Франции.
Для реализации этих планов необходимо, чтобы война продлилась как можно дольше, и именно в эту сторону должны быть направлены все силы, которыми мы располагаем в Западной Европе и на Балканах.
Рассмотрим теперь второе предположение, т. е. победу Германии. Некоторые придерживаются мнения, что эта возможность представляет для нас серьезную опасность. Доля правды в этом утверждении есть, но было бы ошибочно думать, что эта опасность будет так близка и так велика, как некоторые ее представляют. Если Германия одержит победу, она выйдет из войны слишком истощенной, чтобы начать вооруженный конфликт с СССР по крайней мере в течение десяти лет.
Ее основной заботой будет наблюдение за побежденными Англией и Францией с целью помешать их восстановлению. С другой стороны, победоносная Германия будет располагать огромными территориями, и в течение многих десятилетий она будет занята “их эксплуатацией” и установлением там германских порядков. Очевидно, что Германия будет очень занята в другом месте, чтобы повернуться против нас. Есть и еще одна вещь, которая послужит укреплению нашей безопасности. В побежденной Франции ФКП всегда будет очень сильной. Коммунистическая революция неизбежно произойдет, и мы сможем использовать это обстоятельство для того, чтобы прийти на помощь Франции и сделать ее нашим союзником. Позже все народы, попавшие под “защиту” победоносной Германии, также станут нашими союзниками. У нас будет широкое поле деятельности для развития мировой революции.
Товарищи! В интересах СССР — Родины трудящихся, чтобы война разразилась между Рейхом и капиталистическим англо-французским блоком. Нужно сделать все, чтобы эта война длилась как можно дольше в целях изнурения двух сторон. Именно по этой причине мы должны согласиться на заключение пакта, предложенного Германией, и работать над тем, чтобы эта война, объявленная однажды, продлилась максимальное количество времени. Надо будет усилить пропагандистскую работу в воюющих странах для того, чтобы быть готовыми к тому времени, когда война закончится...” (Центр хранения историко-документальных коллекций, бывший Особый архив СССР, ф. 7, оп. 1, д. 1223)."
Приведенный текст речи Сталина воспроизведен на основе ее французской копии, сделанной, вероятно, кем-то из Коминтерна, присутствовавшим на Политбюро. Конечно, необходимо сравнить этот вариант с подлинником. Однако сделать это невозможно, так как он в архиве за семью печатями и в ближайшее время вряд ли станут обнародовать факсимиле этого безусловно исторического документа, столь откровенно обнажившего агрессивность политики СССР. Эта речь Сталина легла в основу позиции советской стороны при подписании ею секретных протоколов с фашистской Германией о разделе Европы. Можно напомнить, что почти полвека и официальные политики и профессиональные историки убеждали общественность в непричастности СССР к этим документам, да и вообще отрицали сам факт их существования. А “выручала” — тоталитарная закрытость архивов."
The fact that Bushueva extensively refers to
Victor Suvorov
, an amateur historian widely criticized by western scholars, adds no additional credibility to her own opinions and interpretations. For instance, her claim that the Politbureau meeting took place on Aug 19, and that the Russian original of the speech remains to be classified is not supported by facts.
If you are interested in creating the Stalin's speech on March 10, 1939 article, I probably can help you. However, before telling something more concrete I would like to look how many sources are available on that account. I'll try to find everything I can, and after that we can come back to that issue.
However, I propose you to concentrate on the MRP article. You rose a question about the Background section, we found many sources on that account (and I believe I'll be able to found more) so let's finish this job first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
1) Stalin's speech: it is quite possible that the latest refound by ms. Bushueva is a fraud, but the original quotation from 1939 by the French news agency is real. Anyway, seems we can only add different points of view to the article, nothing more. Maybe authenticity problem cannot ever solve.
2) MRP article. After your answers, I have done some research. And as a historian amateur (not my speciality) I spent some time to study these issues. Now, I try to answer if there ever was a Russian and/or Soviet nationalism before the WWII. I found a book "The Fall of an Empire, the Birth of a Nation", where professor Timo Vihavainen wrote an article about this exact issue. I have added some point to the article
Russian chauvinism. Anyway, the right answer is 1937, when Russian language and Russian values was praised central press frequently. From March 1938 Russian become a compulsory subject in all Soviet schools. NOTE! I read couple of books about the Soviet propaganda and books covers during the Winter War, and patriotism was note a first subject in those. The covers were named "The heroes of the battle against White-Finns", "The heroes of the Finnish Campaign", "Our artillery men in the Finnish Front", "Fearless pioneers in the Finnish Front"... but there was a one book cover dated 20 January 1941: "In the battle for the Socialist Motherland (V votyih za sozialisticheskuyu rodinu)". Seems some sort of Soviet patriotism before the German attack. Peltimikko (talk
) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

I have reported your removal of the merger tag at

Communist genocide to the Administrators incident noticeboard.[9] You may respond there. Please do not remove the merger tag until this matter is resolved. The Four Deuces (talk
) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Materiél

Hi, In

Matériel to Materiel). Ratfox (talk
) 15:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you were probably editing at the same time Ratfox (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep. Ref fixes take its own time... Peltimikko (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi, replied to your note on my talk. Peace, delldot ∇. 20:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am waiting for your comments

Dear Peltimikko,
I am still waiting for your arguments in support for the removal of Hitler's quote from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact article. If I will get no reasonable arguments I'll restore the quote.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My arguments are same as before. I do not think the quote is good for the article. It is primary source (almost original research), which is less good than secondary source. And secondly, actions by Hitler were not purely by the quote. He allied with Stalin to divide eastern european countries (incl. Finland) (the only question was which one of these men would break the pact first) and exercised intensive trading with the USSR - so, the racial policy was just a one of the issues, not the main issue. And thirdly, I moved the quote to the article Soviet–German relations before 1941, were it is in better context. Peltimikko (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Quoting primary sources is not OR. With regards to your second point, Hitler did exactly what he proclaimed in the quote: signed a temporary alliance with the Soviets to clear the way to the world dominance. Your third point is also unclear for me: Soviet–German relations before 1941 is a mother article for the MRP article, the latter discusses one particular aspect of Soviet-German relations. Therefore, all details and all quotes are quite relevant to this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Response

I'm little suprised that we have some editors (with Russian connection) who deny that there is nothing wrong with press freedom in Russia

Well, I don't merely have a Russian connection but I'm a Russian myself who lives in Russia. And I don't think there's nothing wrong with the press freedom (nor state that in Wiki).

If you read the article, you should see it has a certain structure. If (for example) you could supplement the information in various sections with fresher analytics, that would be a valuable contribution.

I am not blind to the critical information. But what causes the negative reaction (not only of me, but lots of others, not only Russians) is the bashing criticism. ellol (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Re 2

I know, that Russians are not treated fairly in your country, Finland:

immigrant Russian-speakers face considerable societal prejudice and discrimination, still occasionally fuelled by media portrayal of Russians as "mafia and criminals". [10]
one of the problems affecting recent immigrants is the common misconception in the press and hence in public opinion that associates them with members of the Russian mafia and creates a negative image of all Russians. [11]

[12]

I hope that your clearly seen intentions to dismiss sources speaking positively about Russia, or coming from that country (in respects to the

Freedom of the press in Russia), are not powered by any sort of prejudice, but you are capable to explain your attitudes without relying on the origins of a document but only by the way of citing the criticism of its contents. ellol (talk
) 11:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Like probably in all Western countries, there is discrimination in Finland. And towards Russian minority among others as well. However, this is a question of big picture, not details. I do not want give country comparisons a big role, but Finland has rated as one of the most press freedom countries in the world. For example IPI comments an arrest of photographer Pentikäinen very negative, but sees In terms of press freedom, Finland continues to have an extremely good record. [13], Freedom House Finnish law provides for freedom of speech, which is also respected in practice. [14] or Reporters Without Borders rated Finland as number 1 among Denmark, Ireland, Norway and Sweden.
Still, as I wrote I do not want the press freedom in Russia, to be any battleground for any ideological/political thinking for example "Russia vs. West" or "Russia vs. Finland/Baltics/etc". This is about that the Kreml should respect basic human rights in their own country, as well as any civilized country. However we are writing encyclopedia, and all notable issues are noticed. You seem keep a single (and old) report and individual comments more important than full reports by international organisations (u.s. based or non-u.s. based). So, first big picture then details. Peltimikko (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
We do not fool the readers any way, when we say that the 2004 report stated this or that. It must be clear for a reader that "this or that" is a valid assessment of the situation made in 2004. My real point of concern is that by subduing ourselves to the situation where only the reports of the last two or three years are deemed valid, we would suffer greatly from the lack of objectivity due to moving certain valid viewpoints out of the scope of the article.
I welcome the newer reports made by other organizations, whenever they allow to add new details or to provide a different view of the overall situation. Although, it's also clear, that in some cases some reports may cause sharp internal responses (like the responses to Freedom House assessments) and they are also notable.
I am never making a special point of relying on individual comments. It's only my personal view that every statement is written by some person who is ultimately responsible for its verifiability. But of course, what matters are not the real names (such as Alvaro Gil-Robles or Vladimir Lukin), but the names of the offices that make the corresponding claims: in particular, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation. And as such, these offices are no more "personal opinions" than other institutes such as the IPI or the RWB.
"First big picture than details". I believe, that the assessments of European and Russian Commissioners currently placed to the introduction are "the big picture" views about the situation. Rather than that, stating that "multiple organizations criticize the situation" adds no information to the "big picture". But figuring out the major points of their criticism (or praise), as what was done with the European and Russian Commissioner reports, does actually contribute to the "big picture". ellol (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)



I also dislike the selectivity of use of the judicial system, etc, etc. And I believe that any issues must be fairly reported. But if you believe that you have every right to bash the Kremlin with whatever means (including outright lie) for the sole reason that you dislike its methods, it's a huge mistake. The Wikipedia is not a battlefield indeed. Our aim is not to bash the negative side, but to report it adequately. Wikipedia is not a place for over-ideologized contributors. ellol (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Winter War

thank you so much for nominateing the article for an FA! I have been wanting this article to bedome an FA for a while now. I even added a map to it. anyway thanks alot :)--

Expert
17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It is always nice to receive positive feedback. Thank you. Peltimikko (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh dont mention it! I was goint to nominate it for FA sooner or later but im not that good with doing it, I did nominate World War II for GA but so far, nothing has happended. And if the Winter War actually becomes a FA, it will the first FA that I really helped to get to FA status. (If you count a map, and a few refrances and sentences)--
Expert
 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rybkin and Finnish-Soviet negotiation

Hi, Peltimikko. I'm currently reviewing the history of Soviet diplomatic negotiations in the 1930s, and I thought I'd ask you a question you might be able to help answer. I notice that you wrote in Boris Rybkin that "In April 1938, Stalin gave Rybkin a mission: Rybkin was to start secret negotiations with the Finnish government against the Nazi Germany threat. In reality, the Soviet Union demanded some areas near Leningrad, fortification of the Åland islands, and other issues." What exactly did you mean by this – was negotiating about joint cooperation against Nazi Germany something that Rybkin initially came to Finland for? Also, do you have any kind of source regarding Stalin's orders for Rybkin's negotiating about Germany – maybe this was a Finnish source? Thanks. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Futher background of the Rybkin-negotiations are explained in the article Background of the Winter War. In a way, from late 1938 to early 1939, the Soviets tried to negotiate (or soft demand). But late 1939, the Soviets made aggressive ultimatum. I think the Rybkin-negotiations is not disputed issue between Russian and Finnish historians. However, the contemprory Russian literature is divided between "traditionalists" and "modernists". Traditionalists support the Soviet truth, where the Finns were seen as a part of German/Western invasion plans against Leningrad, and the some of most extermists deny that Soviet arranged the Shelling of Mainila. Modernists are quite close with Finnish/Western historians. This is second-hand analysis in a Finnish book were a Russian historian Yuri Kilin wrote about a contemprory Russian literature. Peltimikko (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing anything, just curious about the background. ;-) I was actually wondering about what kind of negotiating against the "Nazi Germant threat" Stalin was talking about – I guess it was around the premise of Germany's use of Finland as a base in case of war vs. the Soviet Union, the basic history you had in mind, then? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. However, this an interesting historical question overall. Was the Rybkin-negotiations real or not? If we think that Finland would cede some soil (and received some from northern Karelia) in the Karelian Isthmus and lease Hanko Peninsula, it would has same destiny as Baltic States (first military bases, and after a year full occupation). But according to Finnish historian Ohto Manninen, there is no direct evidence that the Soviets had full occupation in their mind when they demanded areas and a military base in Finland (in 1938 and early 1939, the situation was different late 1939). Unfortunatelly, due to contemprorary political reasons in Russia, the historical archives of Moscow are re-closed, so historians cannot continue their search. Peltimikko (talk) 05:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I thought there might also have been some other negotiations regarding Nazi Germany as far as Rybkin's assignment. I guess what might have happened had Finland ceded some of the bases and territory would just have to be one of those counterfactuals – what sort of view one subscribes to also heavily depends on things like one's overall evaluation of the Soviet Union's role vis-a-vis the Third Reich, and one's general position on the political spectrum would probably factor into that evaluation also. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. Winter War

Hi, Peltimikko: are you sure that Winter War was part of the Second World War? I take it that during this period countries are considered as being in the war at the time that they were involved in action against one of the Axis Powers or against one of the powers at war with one of the European Axis Powers. For example, Japan and China were at war since 1937, but this period isn't considered part of the war, since Japan wasn't an Axis Power at the time yet. Similarly, the Soviet Union's battles against Japan in Mongolia before the start of Barbarossa aren't counter as part of WWII in any books I've read, and I believe that this also applies to the Winter War, since that was simply a war involving two sides, Finland and the USSR – and not any of the Axis Powers or allies opposing them (as neither the Soviets nor the Finns were technically part of either bloc at that time). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Most historians date the begin of the World War II when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1, 1939. A period after this is called Phoney War. Furthermore, notice that Nazi Germany assaulted neutral countries of Denmark and Norway 16 February 1940, and these assaults, as well as Soviet assault on Finland, are considered as part of WWII. Peltimikko (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Naturally, nearly all historians date the beginning of World War II as September 1, 1939, and I think it also makes sense to consider the Soviet invasion on September 17 to be part of the war. (Since both the USSR and Germany were technically at war with Poland, an Allied power.) But which sources, exactly, though consider the Soviet-Finnish War as part of World War II? Of course, it occured during the war. But during that period neither the Soviets nor the Finns were part of either the Axis or Allies – everything I've read (meaning, basically, a ton of general English-language treatments of World War II) treats the Soviet Union's role in World War II proper as either 1941-1945 or Polish campaign in 1939 + war against Germany and its allies/co-belligerents in 1941-1945. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would emphasize a word "during", because the Operation Weserübung was a part of WWII though Denmark and Norway were neutral. Maybe there is an answer in Encyclopædia Britannica? Peltimikko (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The difference with Operation Weserübung is that Denmark and Norway, though neutral until then, were brought into the conflict when assaulted by Germany, an Axis Power – this being the distinguishing factor inapplicable the 1939-40 Finnish-Soviet Winter War and the Soviet-Japanese summer '39 battles around Khalkin Gol (the Japanese Empire wasn't a member of the Axis until 1940). I haven't checked Encyclopedia Britannica – is there anything there? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I just checked Google Books – performing a search for "Winter War" and "part of World War II." According to [15], the Winter War not part of World War II. This source [16] also distinguishes the Winter War from the "early part of World War II". So, according to these references, the 1939-40 war between Finland and the USSR is not typically considered a part of the war. I think this should be corrected in the relevant articles on the topic, unless you object or have other sources. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there is no consesus. According to "A History of Modern Russia" by Robert Service, he has located even the Spanish Civil War under a section "The Second World War". In a way, this is not a bad limit. Maybe there should be a broader discussion in Wikipedia of this matter? I would keep Winter War and Operation Weserübung inside WWII, but if the community decides otherwise it is not bad either. I just follow rules. Peltimikko (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would ask Paul Siebert for a third opinion because I generally think he's an expert and his contributions on the subject show an incredible awareness of the history, but I have no intimation of what you think of that, since you guys seem to have debated on opposite sides on prior occasions. Let me know what sort of dispute resolution process you'd be in favor of. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"You guys"? I am not an expert (just read a lot as an amateur) of these matters, and I gave my opinion. I think it is wrong to presume that I always take "other side". Peltimikko (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Huh? Sorry – it looks like I wasn't clear, but I never presumed that. By you guys I meant you and Paul Siebert, and I don't think you always take the other side (I actually think you're an excellent editor) – I was just wondering if you think I should ask him for a third opinion (I think this is standard procedure in dispute resolution cases between two people) or whether there's some other DR procedure. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Seems I misunderstood also, sorry. Paul Siebert has good question and sources, but I sometimes see his conclusions differently. Anyway, not a bad idea. Peltimikko (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little discussion I had with user Whiskey on the very same topic. Might be a good idea to ask him, too. --Illythr (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

By not part of WWII that would conveniently mean the Soviet Union did not invade the Baltics as part of WWII either, which would conveniently mean that the Soviet Union's only participation in WWII consists of "defensive responses" to Hitler's initial invasion of Poland and Hitler's subsequent invasion of the USSR through the Baltics/Eastern Europe. This paints out the Soviet Union to have not participated in WWII as an aggressor at all. Just wanted to point that out. (Apologies for leaving out Romania in this simplification, I can work it in too.)  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  23:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, as user Anti-Nationalist mentions above, WWII was an Axis vs Allies thing, and neither Finland, nor Romania, USSR or any of the Baltic states were part of any of the two camps at the time (unlike Poland). Also note that in this post of yours you find yourself agreeing with the notion that the Continuation war is a separate event between USSR and Finland only. So, perhaps, you can explain how come the Winter war can be part of a WW2, while its continuation can't? --Illythr (talk) 00:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW. Continuation War: The Finnish historians have changed their view in recent years, and now majority of historians see Finland as an ally for Germany. See also [17]. Peltimikko (talk) 05:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Having followed the related development somewhat closely, I have not come across any suggesting that "now majority of historians see Finland as an ally for Germany". Following the attached link of yours, three additional links are offered on the Talk:Continuation War page. In one of those links it is correctly stated that still currently today Finland's official policy remains that Continuation War was a separate war from WW2 (your link No. 2 on that page - Editor in Chief Janne Wirkkunen, Helsingin Sanomat).
Janne Wirkkunen states there: "Virallinen Suomi on edelleen erillissodan kannalla, mutta tutkijoiden nuorempi polvi näkee asian jo toisin". That is Mr. Wirkkunen's personal view, of course, and in my view he falls into over-generalizing in the latter part of that sentence. There are a few vocal younger researchers, who have been given quite a lot of air time, as their views are seen as rather radical and therefore also interesting.
In your link No. 4 on the Talk:Continuation War page it is stated: "Näin ajattelee enemmistö 28 historian professorista, joilta Helsingin Sanomat kysyi, onko perusteltua puhua erillissodasta" (i.e., majority of the group of 28 professors chosen by Helsingin Sanomat think this way). Yet, this statement appears to have been given as a bait for the new discussion topic on that page, and no information is offered as to who these chosen 28 professors in question are, and no further details are offered.
Please note the wording of the question which had been pointed to the alleged group of professors. They were not asked whether or not Finland was an ally of Germany, but instead they were asked if they saw the term "separate war" justified. There's a difference. Boris Novikov (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
You made similar question in talk page of Continuation War, so I answered there Talk:Continuation_War#The_Continuation_War_formally_was_seen_as_a_separate_war_by_both_Moscow_and_Helsinki. Peltimikko (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of the 3RR: Arbitration request

Hello, Peltimikko. I filed an arbitration request regarding your violation of the 3 RR policy: [18], [19], [20], [21]. Please, make yourself aware of the arbitration request: [22].

Regards, ellol (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

3 RR violation: report

Peltimikko, I filed a report regarding your violation of the 3 RR policy at the page

Freedom of the press in Russia: [23], [24], [25], [26]. The report can be seen here. ellol (talk
) 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

What Wikipedia is not
").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments
with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk
) 01:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuation War: New proposal for the Aims' first paragraph. This neutrally tells the existence of the both lines of thought

Cheers Peltimikko. Please take a look at the altered new version ---> "merely" became "primarly" + some things were left out, etc. Is this something you can live with ?

Aims
Unlike the Winter War, which was a Soviet war of aggression against Finland, some researchers - most notably Markku Jokisipilä[1] - have argued the Continuation War to have been an aggression initiated by the Finns, to rectify the territorial losses of the Winter War. However, Finland's 'official' stance remains that the Continuation War was a "separate war"[2] from WW2, in which the Finnish offensive launched in 1941 was primarily a counter-offensive, to push back the massive Soviet attack launched on June 25, 1941 - and not a part of the German campaign against the Soviet Union. The 'official' Finnish stance about the "separate war" has been re-enforced by statements given by the current President of Finland Tarja Halonen. Boris Novikov (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Troop strength figures in the Winter War

The term "Finnish Army" is misleading, as in Finnish (and sometimes in English too), it combines all forces of the army, the navy and the air force - and sometimes also other troops operating outside these branches, for example in the guard duties. In this sense, Finnish troop strength at the end of March 1940 were: The Army - 245,000, The Navy - 15,000, The Air Force - 22,500 and Home Guard and other troops operating directly under the Ministry of Defence or HQ (Pääesikunta) - 82,000. From this table comes the generally given numbers of 250,000-280,000. (Talvisodan Historia 4, pp. 392-394) --Whiskey (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You are probably correct. I was re-thinking these figures, as read the article of the Winter Winter in Tieteen kuvalehti Historia, where Danish authors wrote that the Finns had 180,000 men (Soviet figures were same as in Wikipedia article). In Talvisodan pikkujättiläinen p. 299, there is a sentence: "Suomen puolutusvoimien liikekannallepanovahvuus, toisin sanoen aseistettavien ja varustettavien sotilaiden määrä oli talvisodan alkaessa 337 000 miestä.". And Soviet number of troops is probably too low because it includes only men in operation, not in support. Anyway, I participated to series of Winter War theme seminars in Helsingin työväenopisto where one of the lecturer Lasse Laaksonen (author of book Todellisuus ja harhat) told us that ultimate numbers are not important but the combat capability. Peltimikko (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

Hello, Peltimikko. I would like to assert you that I'm quite pro-European. I believe that bringing more of European standards including those of human rights is certainly good for Russia. As you know Russia is a member of the Council of Europe and that institution (especially its Commissioner for Human Rights) helps Russia to improve its human rights situation, while providing an independent review of its situation now for more than 15 years. I wish to assert you that that institution plays on "your" side, on the side of European values and standards.

Regarding your allegation of me being pro-Putin, I am certainly pro-Putin when Putin works to improve the situation in Russia, in particular in concern of the situation with human rights, while I am certainly anti-Putin when I disagree with his actions and/or policies.

In the further work, please, let's focus on issues rather than personalities. Regards, ellol (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. In future, I will focus more on issues. Peltimikko (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Peltimikko. Why wouldn't you read/use something serious about EU-Russia relationships, for example, Can and should the EU and Russia reset their relationship? by Katinka Barysch ? ellol (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As all EU-Russia papers, this one also emphasizes an importance of good relationship. But as it says in the end "...[EU] wants to see progress on economic reform as well as human rights and political freedoms.". This is a problem between relations. However, it does not necessarily have an effect on economic relations. Peltimikko (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

What Wikipedia is not
").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments
with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk
) 01:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Background of the occupation and annexation of the Baltic states

-- Cirt (talk

) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi, Peltimikko. I think you're making well-intentioned edits, so I don't personally see this as a serious thing, but you ought to be wary of the 3RR restriction. I got blocked by Colchicum just a day ago - so just take it as a friendly warning.

PasswordUsername (talk
) 18:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Peltimikko (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
For the record, you got blocked by William M. Connoley, not by me, for what you did yourself. And you managed to bring this before the 3RR noticeboard even before I did. So I had very little to do with all this. Peltimikko is indeed making well-intentioned edits, possibly unlike some others. Colchicum (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Let me guess – this is another of the pages added to your 8,804 article watchlist, Colch?
PasswordUsername (talk
)
Yes it is. I watchlist the talkpages of every interesting user (you are not one of them, though). Colchicum (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't know what to say to that.
PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
No reason to be envious. This is how it looks like; quite unmanageable:
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎; 22:01 . . (+337) . . Dweller (talk | contribs) 
(→User:Matt Giwer:  indeed)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Peltimikko‎; 22:00 . . (+186) . . Colchicum (talk | contribs) (→Reverts)
(diff) (hist) . . 2009 swine flu outbreak‎; 21:59 . . (+66) . . WAS 4.250 (talk | contribs) (→Notes: restore 
deleted source)
(diff) (hist) . . m North Korea‎; 21:59 . . (-141) . . MexicanWoman (talk | contribs) (→Major cities)
(diff) (hist) . . Template talk:Did you know‎; 21:59 . . (-1,055) . . Giants27 (talk | contribs) (→Evangelical 
Lutheran Church of St Peter: to prep1)
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment‎; 21:59 . . (+132) . . KieferSkunk (talk | contribs) (→Requesting 
clarification: Hello? Bueller?)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:Fascism‎; 21:58 . . (+600) . . 89.241.135.133 (talk) (→Proposal)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Alaexis‎; 21:57 . . (+376) . . Apswaaa (talk | contribs) (→Ссылки на журналиста: new section)
(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎; 21:57 . . (+579) . . Mangojuice (talk | contribs) (→Vintagekits 
and Kittbrewster)
(diff) (hist) . . Slovakia‎; 21:55 . . (+188) . . Wizzard (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 295390620 by 217.219.124.162 (talk))
(diff) (hist) . . Soviet deportations from Estonia‎; 21:55 . . (-146) . . Colchicum (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 
295454797 by PasswordUsername (talk) irrelevant)
(diff) (hist) . . Costa Rica‎; 21:51 . . (+44) . . Mariordo (talk | contribs) (→See also: This is a topic related to 
Costa Rica but not specific to the country, so it deserves to be listed here (the issue was raised about CR abolishing the army))
(diff) (hist) . . Venezuela‎; 21:50 . . (+17) . . Homo logos (talk | contribs) (→External links)
(diff) (hist) . . m South Korea‎; 21:49 . . (0) . . Rjanag (talk | contribs) (Reverted edits by 219.89.204.200 (talk) 
to last version by SieBot)
(diff) (hist) . . m Greenland‎; 21:49 . . (+22) . . Luis wiki (talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . m Energy policy of Russia‎; 21:48 . . (+1,084) . . Mauritius99 (talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:Jimbo Wales‎; 21:46 . . (+344) . . Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→Still need help)
(diff) (hist) . . Uganda‎; 21:45 . . (-23) . . Lilmissdaughty (talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . Talk:2008 South Ossetia war‎; 21:44 . . (+1,083) . . HistoricWarrior007 (talk | contribs) (→Discussion)
(diff) (hist) . . Korean Air Lines Flight 007‎; 21:43 . . (-15) . . PigFlu Oink (talk | contribs) (→Details of the flight)
(diff) (hist) . . Mark Sirők‎; 21:42 . . (+24) . . Shotlandiya (talk | contribs)
(diff) (hist) . . Cambodia‎; 21:42 . . (+155) . . 68.167.93.154 (talk)

Colchicum (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised "Fascism" is up there.
PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Specially for you:
Communist Party of Estonia
Communist Party of the Russian SFSR
Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Communist party
Comoros
Comoros forests
Conceived in Liberty
Conestabile Madonna
Congress of Estonia
Conioselinum tataricum
Conium maculatum

Excuse me for this chat, Peltimikko. Colchicum (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm kind of bored by this. You're not just the sort of user I find interesting either – however curious the first article you edited turned out.
 –
PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
??? This was very far from my first edit. Mr. Boring. Colchicum (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The one which began your presence was
PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Just like your presence here didn't start with Helena Sheehan and Communist Party USA. Colchicum (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Didn't start with 166.217.251.170. Anyway, kick-ass expansion on that Duce article: Ultimo atto is a biopic must-see for old and young.
PasswordUsername (talk
) 22:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please people, chat elsewhere. Peltimikko (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahh ha ha ha. You have to admit there Peltikikko, that is one of the funniest comment wars ever no? I wonder if my tiny page will ever have one. Shabidoo 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Occupation and annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union (1944)