User talk:Clarifer

Hello, Clarifer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You can sign your name and the current date on talk pages and votes by typing in four tildes (~~~~). If you have any questions at all, you can have a look at the help pages, put up a question at the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic countries

Hello Clarifer. I just wanted to let you know that I will soon revert your recent edit to the article, because it gives the impression that the use of the term "Nordic" in reference to the region encompassing the Nordic Council members is somehow ambiguous or fuzzy. Such a claim of insecurity is unfounded and thus violates this policy. But first, I want to give you a chance to present your case, preferably citing a reputable source of some sort. On a second note, you may be interested in participating in the ongoing debate here, as well. // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 14:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Big Adamsky. Thank you for letting me know. In which English dictionary may I find the term "Nordic region"? Do you feel that it has a definition in the English language and is a coined in term (like the term 'Nordic countries'? I can find the term "Nordic countries" without difficulty and the translation of that term seems to be "Pohjola" and "Norden" in my dictionaries. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion about the article 'Scandinavia' but to my understanding a conversation on the article 'Nordic countries' should be conducted in the proper place, i.e. in its own discussion page. Clarifer 15:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very polite person, with all those thank-yous.

The word you are referring to is the adjective Nordic, which has no nominal form itself (unlike its counterparts in the Nordic languages). Hence, one will add nouns like "countries" or "region" or "council" or "cooperation" or "politics" or "skiing", depending on what the adjective is describing.

My suggestion for you to join a related discussion was meant as... a suggestion. :) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 17:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try to be. If you look in a dictionary under Nordic (or Norden), you will usually see the term 'Nordic countries' enlisted. The term 'Nordic region' on the other hand is not an equally coined in English expression to my knowledge but I might be mistaken, so you can prove me wrong if you wish to. Let's continue this discussion in the talk pages, ok? Clarifer 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish People

Very good edit you made, thanks! JdeJ 09:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toponyms of Finland

Hello, Clarifier!

You invited me to edit Toponyms of Finland. I've now made a few edits there. Feel free to continue editing. A good article, indeed. --MPorciusCato 17:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

by User:Clarifer at Finnish people reverted. Please do not replace refed and sourced facts with unsourced ones in the future. Please do understand the difference between the population of Finland and ethnic Finns living in Finland. Since there are 93.4% of ethnic Finns in Finland out of the total population of 5,238,460. The number of ethnic Finns in Finland is roughly 4,893,000. Please also do not misuse tags in the future but start a discussion in case you see anything questionable in an article. Please respond if necessary only at the relevant talk page.Thanks!--Termer 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, User:Clarifer has not vandalised any page. He did not removed any sourced fact, he removed a claim that Termer had arrived at by inventing his own definition of who is a member of the Finnish people and his own calculations to arrive at a number for this people. Both of these were original research (WP:OR and User:Clarifer did the right thing to remove it. JdeJ 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clarifer please stop the pattern of vandalizing WP by removing facts that are refed from reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica etc. and please stop replacing the facts with not sourced commentaries. Please have your edit at Finnic peoples sourced ASAP and please have the text from Encyclopedia Britannica restored ASAP. If not replied, I would need to interpret your edit as another act of vandalism and restore the integrity of WP by reverting the text back to in accordance with the sources mentioned above. Thanks--Termer 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish substrate in Germanic languages

Moi, would you mind taking a look at this page Germanic_substrate_hypothesis? As you seem to know quite a lot about these areas, your input would be nice! JdeJ 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Wikipedia coventions

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Finland#Naming_coventions, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(settlements)#Finland.

I already linked the "toponyms of Finland" article there, and I think the convention is quite fine now. However, remember those nasty disputes about historical names? We definately need a convention on that too. Could you write about the usage of historical names to that convention? Do you have any references? It would be ridiculous to say "I moved to Sibbo in 2002 but now I am leaving Sipoo in 2003", just because the Finnish-speaking population grew larger than the Swedophone. By the way, all Wikipedia conventions were written by normal users, we just need consencus so go ahead. I have posted that section in WikiProject Finland talk page, so when WP Finland folks agree to accept the convention, any lone wolf vandal will have a very hard time disputing the convention. --Pudeo ⺮ 22:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swedish-speaking Finns. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JdeJ (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history, I can understand your frustration at the source you provided being removed, but as both you and the anon user are having a discussion about it on the talk page, the solution is to find a way out there instead of you just keeping on inserting it and he just keeping on reverting it. Edit wars benefit nobody. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying the anon user 128.214.30.138 Clarifer (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for taking a constructive approach. Your most recent edit is a good compromise perfectly in line with the source and I will restore it myself if it would be reverted while I'm online. JdeJ (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnic peoples

Hello, I see you made some good arguments in the talk page of Finnic Peoples. Are you aware that the problems you pointed at are still unsolved, including the name of the article and the very definition of "Finnic peoples"? This is critical because the longer the article stands as such the more people will became falsely aware of this "ethnicity". 62.240.91.28 (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is correct anymore. It seems that in particular in American English (also Britannica) and in Russian literature and in spheres outside of academic Uralic studies the word 'Finnic' is taken to mean "the other half of Finno-Ugric", i.e. Uralic minus Samoyed and Ugric. In European literature, 'Finnic' seems far more often a synonym for 'Baltic-Finnic' and is certainly so in Estonian, Finnish and Swedish literature. Go figure... The article is indeed very poor and confusing and one-sided. It is also unfortunately guarded by someone who either is ignorant of the European interpretation of the term or has a personal agenda and is far from willing to make compromises. I don't have the energy to start a fight at the moment. Sorry. Clarifer (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About a "Mysterious Reverter"

One of your edits about Swedish-speaking Finns has been reverted by an "anonymous" IP who is, quite obviously, our "old friend" Podomi. MPorciusCato filed a sockpuppetry investigation against him, whereupon Podomi "pled guilty" (his own expression) and tried to justify his sockpuppetry, POV-pushing etc by some lame phrases. And then he just keeps on with his sockpuppetry, as if nothing had happened. That guy's childishness beggars description. Evidently he's curious to find out just how many rules of Wikipedia he'll be allowed to break before he'll be banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. MPorciusCato wrote that anyone who wants to add a comment on the page where Podomi's sockpuppetry is being investigated should feel free to do so. Perhaps you should consider adding a comment there. Monegasque (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]