First, you write: "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field." This is rather obnoxious and ill informed assessment. If you would like me to send you a copy of my CV, I would more than oblige you. I get the sense from you that anyone with a critical point of view is some kind of quack or fraud. That is not true. I have very good credentials in three fields.
First, I am a leading expert on the conversion of defense industries and industrial policy. I worked with some of the leading scholars in the world on that combination of topics. I published my dissertation on conversion of defense firms. I interviewed about 30 persons at Saab, including about 5 persons on the president level. I published a Linköping University working paper on that topic, I could cite that for you if you would like. I studied the defense industries of the UK, Sweden and the US and got money from the MacArthur Foundation to study the US defense industry. I did a postdoc at Linköping University to study Saab's diversification. I have interviewed top Swedish business leaders at Saab Aerospace, Ericsson, two very important firms. I have published peer reviewed journal articles about Swedish innovation policy.
Second, on the ethnic question, I initiated and led a 1.3 Million Euro project looking at how Swedish ethnic groups and women were incorporated into qualified, ICT-sector jobs. I published an article about this for UNESCO. I worked for a leading Swedish immigrant association, organized a series of seminars on democracy and immigrants (involving four PhDs), and conducted surveys, oral historical studies, and case studies about how firms incorporate immigrant groups in my EU project.
Third, on Swedish industrial policy, I organized the two day National Green New Deal Conference here, broadcast by SVT24, a leading news channel in Sweden. The conference included the heads of political parties, companies, environment and labor organizations. That makes me an authority on Swedish green policies, or their absence. Jonathan M. FeldmanJonathanMFeldman (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Clarification of "control count" (theres nothing to link to, so it doesnt explainwaht the phrase means)(Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)).
The Barnstar of European Merit | ||
For helping the Swedish general election, 2010 look more presentable and clean with the various graphical demonstrations of voting for parties per district. Lihaas (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to Hydrox by Lihaas (talk) on 21:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
Superb, I am taken :) My first barnstar ♥ --hydrox (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Seems like only the 2 of us are monitoring the article, I was wondering if you believed the edits in the Analysis section previously that linked to counterpunch (and not another source) were a Conflict of Interest? I've mentioned something on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Swedish general election, 2010 to see if it would be considered so. Would you mind taking a look?
ps- I added the potential landmark event to your change in the lead, it should be phrased better. But feel free to change it.Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. but i don't understand the difference. Can you let me know it? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 05:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
can you see Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010? the infobox is rather large, i was wondering how to decrease it. Woudl aprreciate your help.Lihaas (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Hydrox. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thank you for your patience and good-faith efforts to encourage other editors, and to keep assuming good faith. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Why are you adding Finnish taxable net worths to different articles? they really have no usable meaning to a person not familiar with the Finnish taxation system.
They are very badly correlated to any one persons true net worth. Especially really rich people like Aatos Erkko (whos real net worth is probably surpassing a billion) that have made arrangements to control his assets through various trusts, holding companies and other constructs seem to have a much smaller net worth according to the annual who-to-envy data.
Another example is antti herlin, forbes ranks him at 1.5 billion if i remember correctly, while the Finnish tax office says 15 million or something like that.
for fi.wiki it is another thing but i think they are redundant or even misleading here really.
Gillis (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide us with translations of the sources you've found on the article's talk page? Google translate isn't very good in this case, and from that it looks as if the source not exactly reliable. If we have good translations that will make resolving that issue much easier. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The Otonkoski article tells first Putkonen's story. This is basically what it says now in the wiki-article, so I won't duplicate it. In the end, there's some analysis of the sources, that I didn't write in the wiki-article:
Kansallisarkiston diarion ilmoittamasta paikasta ei löydy Staffan Putkosen aktia. ...
Staffan Putkonen's documents were not found, where National Archives' index claimed them to be at. (ed. During this period Swedish version of person's name was used in official contexts. Staffan is Swedish version of Finnish Tahvo) Vaasa's provincial archive has transcript copies of the District Court proceedings and pardon appeals from 1823 and 1824, but Appeals Court papers are missing. The index has also reference to an appeal for pardon from 1825, but the document could not be found. Execution certificate is missing as well, but it was attached to only two of the documents in question, so it was probably never archived. (ed. full documents were later found, see below)
Pieksämäki parish register has a remark that the verdict was put into action (ed. meaning Putkonen was executed) on 8 July, 1825. The Swedish-language parish register document says: "8/7 8/7 Suonenjoki Og. drg Staff. Staffs. Putkone death-sentenced to be executed"
This would therefore be the last death-sentence to be enacted for which documents could be found, for the time being.
Analysis
The insufficient documents don't contain "clergy document", which would show Putkonen'a background information. The available court proceedings documents or the death certificate don't show Putkonen's date of birth/age. No document about the victim's (Hirvonen) death was found either. (ed. Each of these documents were later found, as explained in this later article Lisäyksiä artikkeliini "Henkirikoksista kuolemaan tuomittujen kohtaloita vuosina 1824–1825 Suomessa" (Genos 1997:2), Additions to my article "Selected destinies of those executed for crimes in Finland 1824–1825" (Genos 1997:2). The documents were found by Seppo J. Kääriäinen from the National Archives with reference SOO pag. 124/1825)
The situation was strongly linked with alcohol and an aggressive outburst of violence for an unknown reason. A piece of firewood seems to have been quite an ordinary weapon at its time for murder. The sentenced's behavior after the event could show that he doesn't have full recollection of the events, and tried to move the blame on others.
During the police interrogations Mr. Putkonen made some quite extraordinary claims about his landlord Juho Lukkari. (ed. Lukkari, in whose house the murder/manslaughter took place. Also note that the time's law did not make distinction between a murder and manslaughter. In modern times the crime would have probably been a manslaughter.) Putkonen claimed that Lukkari had cut his late father's heart out of the dead man's chest. This begs the question, if Mr. Putkonen was quite mentally stable. The claims were clearly debunked during the police investigation.
Court proceedings show that Mr. Putkonen never pled guilty, but the court saw the witness testimony as sufficient proof. In a string of many similar cases, this was probably the last one, where no mitigation was granted. Could this have been affected by the accused's stubborn and unsympathetic behavior? Maybe Tahvo was not one of the locals, an "outsider", come from another village for work?
[...]
Last execution
Marttila's Tiipilännummi has a monument for the "last executed" Antti Hannula, executed on 22 October, 1824. Yrjö Blomstedt claimed that 3 May, 1825 executed Juho Hautimäki would have been the last. (ed. in "Viimeinen mestaus", book Suomen historia volume 5, 1986) But 1825 documents show one even later executed Tahvo Putkonen on 8 July, 1825, whose interrogation reports are not full, but on whom there's a clear marking in Pieksämäki parish documents about the execution.
Overall, especially when combined with the documents that were later found, I would say that the historicity of these events is pretty undoubted. Otonkoski writes in the "additions" article, that the new documents support her earlier findings. So, multiple documents show how the events progressed. It is thus probable, that Mr. Putkonen was the last person to be executed by peace time court order in Finland, unless new evidence surfaces. --hydrox (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
For Swedish general election, 2010, the article doesnt mention how the government was formed. By that i mean how the coalition got the necessary minimum seats. Would you know the answer to this?(Lihaas (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).
can you see/comment on the disruptive user and his tag team User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#editor_issues(Lihaas (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)).
There's a template pair ((Typo))} and ((Not a typo)) designed to encapsulate deliberate or apparent typos and save them from correction. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 28th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Can you comment on this? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lihaas(Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nice one on Smartphone. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
hi. could you please take a view on whether there should be a separate section on evacuations or whether info about evacuations should be dispersed through the text. Sorry, but it is quite urgent to settle this as lots of edits are running by while we argue about it. thanks. Sandpiper (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? Both original and uploads are copyrighted. What is the point of uploading a second one only to request deletion of the original poor quality one? Only one of the images can be used because neither are free, and only the one of higher quality should be needed. Nergaal (talk) 06:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a horrible thing you just did. The main article wasn't particularly large, and now they're going to get progressively out of step again. We now have to do everything six times. EVERYTHING ON THE ACCIDENT IS STILL ON TOPIC ON THE PLANT PAGE. All of the accident applies to the plant and things directly related to the plant, it's entirely on topic there. That's why they were diverging. And nobody was updating the plant article. And nobody is going to.
It's an obvious move to split, but while there's so much editing going on, it doesn't get us anywhere.
So the obvious move is wrong.
We could have always split later anyway, with total complete ease. In meantime it's just pointless make-work.Rememberway (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)