User talk:Teemu Ruskeepää

Bots

Image source problem with Image:Pyrope3.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyrope3.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:Pyrope2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Pyrope2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Titanium

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Enigma Titanium, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Kompassi4.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Kompassi4.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Teemu_Ruskeepää_profiili_6.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Teemu_Ruskeepää_profiili_6.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 22:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Teemu_Ruskeepää_profiili7.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Teemu_Ruskeepää_profiili7.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bigr Tex 01:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Angelodipietra.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelodipietra.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Angelodipietro.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Angelodipietro.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me

Enigma Titanium Limited is labeled as unaccomplished company and denied by ukexpat

I created this page so that this list would show it http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_bicycle_manufacturing_companies why should Enighma Titanium Limited not be listed ? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that is not a valid argument against deletion. Please take a look at: WP:N, WP:Notability (organizations and companies), WP:RS and WP:V for guidelines on notability and sources. If the subject of the article is not notable or claims of notability cannot be verified by reliable sources, the article will be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the page Bridgestone from the list. That is not anymore accomplished than Enigma. The list has been in general done as a list of all bicycle companies, not as a list of prominent and accomplished companies. If my page contradicts the rules of Wikipedia, I demand that you go through that list and put your speedy deletion banner on all those other articles too. I cannot accept that you ignore the other pages while make me lose for your rules. Also, I don't accept that Wikipedia categorizes companies as accomplished. For the sake of fairness and neutrality, Wikipedia must treat all articles of commercial companies the same way. It is impossible for anyone on Wikipedia to separate the companies like you do. I oppose such rules which give the rule makers an upper hand in defining what gets publicity. I will copy this debate on my discussion page and at the list. Tell me how does the article defy the rules of Wikipedia? Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about notability -- the Bridgestone article asserts the company's notability and provides proper reliable sources per WP:RS to support that assertion. Please take a look at the policies and guidelines that I referred to above. Please also note that "it should be here" is not a valid argument against delete nor is other stuff exists. I will post a welcome message on your talk page with a list of helpful stuff to read. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assertion of notability: What if I referred to the two reviews listed in the external links and told how there the bikes are gaining reputation, that according to this article drivers speak positively about Enigma and that both articles critically dorse Enigma? Would that be enough? Otherwise I simply don't have the resources to found my claims. I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read WP:RS you would have no basis for your claim that "I thought you can make articles on Wikipedia without having sources." Reliable sources supporting notability are a cornerstone of Wikipedia. I am not going to debate this any further - it's up to an admin to decide whether this article should be deleted. – ukexpat (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to give up your right to participate in this, you're free to do so. I can't read that page unless you tell me what I should read on it. I have the right to do what I see important, not run around your suspicious megapages full of text and not talking back at you. Now, I think that Wikipedia works so that even people like me who don't have massive resources to draw on can create pages and other similar people can add all judicial sources etc. That is simple bureaucratic and technocratic ballast of this kind of open and accessible encyclopedia, and it prevents Wikipedia from working at all. It smells like concentration of power and resources into the hands of your kind of specialists. I created Tata_OneCAT and it was even shorter than Enigma Titanium Limited and had no sources. Friendly people and small users brought the sources little by little and it all went just fine without ukexpat. Who is this guy anyway? Some control freak faction of Wikipedia? I'm waiting for his answer about details how is my article in contradiction with the rules and does my proposition suffice. Stop evading the question! Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<---- Outdent for legibility. It's not my problem if you refuse to read and abide by WP guidelines and policies. This is a simple situation: You created the article, I nominated it for deletion, you have objected, I have directed you to the relevant guidelines and policies in an attempt to help you. An admin will make the decision as to deletion, and I am quite happy to abide by that decision. Also, please do not stoop to making ad hominem comments. Civility is another cornerstone of WP - I have been civil to you, and expect the same in return. – ukexpat (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy deletion for this page. I think that both of you make valid points and it may be best to have a wider community discussion about the future of this article. Jon513 (talk) 22:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. One point for me ;) Now Mr. Ukexpat, a lawyer, I have a right to refuse reading any of your sources and that does not mean that I will lose any rights concerning this article. As I said, I need to talk here rather than try to go to a law school because if I did what you wanted, I would probably either quit or find learning all those rules so difficult that you could claim a right to lead the deletion due to my incompetence. I don't think that any Wikipedia user has a right to require knowledge of the rules before creating pages. The simple fact that you are refusing to explain the rules to me really points to your malicious and offensive attitude and your attempt to manipulate everyone here to accept your will. Does this ad hominem analysis address the issue more? ;) Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do you flagrantly ignore the rules of all the organisations in which you participate? The policies and guidelines are there for a reason, if you choose to ignore them, that's up to you but sooner or later the WP community will take action to deal with that. I have been civil to you throughout our debate here, if you persist in your incivility and baseless allegations towards me, I will have no option but to report your behaviour in the appropriate forum. – ukexpat (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is related to the reason why Enigma Titanium should be deleted, your reasons for doing this, which you haven't explained in any way, seems to be that you believe every user on Wikipedia should be totally aware and abiding to the rules, and you even demand that all articles that have not been created according to that should be disallowed. Rules are not perfect and even Wikipedia works beyond the rules in some extent. I am not purposely breaking the rules but just creating articles for the benefit of everyone. I also believe that you are isolated in your belief and that other members of the welcoming committee don't expect laws to dictate all user activity. I also believe, even though I don't have the time to go through them, that there is a rule in Wikipedia which allows creating the Enigma Titanium page, regardless of your critisim. Therefore, I'm not worried. I think I've been able to keep you isolated because now this issue will be discussed by others as well. I am also shocked to find that you tried seem as if you could decide yourself that this article needs to be deleted. Only when I spoke against it, you claimed to let the 'admin' decide. It would have been good for ukexpat if an inexperienced user like myself would have simply concluded that it is the Wikipedia authority which denies my article and admitted defeat. You are not the one to decide and I have to say no more. Teemu Ruskeepää (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical detail

I accept the goal to create unrestricted flow of information for all. However, one problem in the internet, along with the hostile debate and flame wars, as put by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, is that there is no real source of knowledge. Wikipedia is a new source, but it lacks technical detail, and has even been acclaimed to be bious and political in the "flame forums" I've had to be in.

The problem in all western democracies is that the people don't have the facts, and they only think what they feel is right. People are subjective and ignorent, while the decisions are made by experts according to actual information about issues. I admit that I myself have a habit of arguing on the flame forums about things that I really don't know about. Then again in my studies of university sociology, I read academic books that have researched and tested scientifical information on phenomenons of the society. I could talk about those issues on the web, but I don't know them well enough, and I can't expect anyone in my audience to know the same academic information. I'd have to talk about sociology with a schoolboy or a worker.

This ignorence is one of the causes of hostile debate on the web. It's like superstition where people draw ignorent conclusions. This is why Wikipedia needs the credible standards of scientific knowledge. It would fulfill the need of the people to find understanding to their lifes, make Wikipedia a real choice for a source, make Wikipedia immune to ignorent attitudes such as unfounded accusations of biousness and is also one of the requierements for Wikipedia to survive in the world of subjective markets.

Take an example of direct democracy system. To change a society from the present to a direct democracy is simiral to the task of Wikipedia. In order to have the levels of information and debate, you need to start with civilized and factual core of enlightened people. You may need a group of academics or other experts to create and guide the debate at first. This is the only way to control the debate when ignorent people join it. When you give knowledge to ignorent people, you must have real knowledge or else you are labeled as one of those ignorent people, and are considered simply as a person with an opinion.

Wikipedia is in danger of being compromised by ignorent articles which doesn't correlate with actual matters or aren't very informative about them. There is no control of what people write, whilst everyone can do it. To spread knowledge, you need the freedom for everyone to participate but also the responsibility of what is acclaimed as a truth. We can question the articles on Wikipedia with the discussion page, but if the general number of articles needed to be questioned, then Wikipedia wouldn't seem credible anymore. Sure it would be wise to let everyone to say what they want, but if the words are never critically approved by others on Wikipedia, it would all become a great mess in which it would be inpractical to search for any critical information. The unrestricted freedom in the global sence on the Wikipedia leads to anarchy where it is not possible to define what is critical knowledge and what is belief.

This is why Wikipedia, as well as any newborn direct democracy needs a consul of critical experts that initate articles, admit freedoms to the general public only gradually, such as in any school, and publicly judges all that is written on Wikipedia.

This is my solution to the lack of technical detail and critical knowledge. Wikipedia should get the experts to write first, and then maintain the same standard of knowledge as people are admitted to participate. Wikipedia can't succeed by just letting anybody to say anything. Sure, you've already opened the Pandora's box, so to speak, but you should seek to influence the standard of articles as much as possible by creating constantly academically approved articles. To control fully the anarchy mentioned above, you would have had to allow only those academically approved articles at first and allow new people to write only assured that they know what they are talking about. This is too late, without a radical reconstruction of Wikipedia, but it might not be too late to save the academic credibility of Wikipedia. I see that you suggest people to read the introduction, tutorial, and have created a sandbox feature here, but I think that by only suggesting people to have responsibility does not save the outcome. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Index

Wikipedia needs an index, where it is possible to monitor and navigate through all the articles; what is written, under what category, what is modified most recently, of what categories is the entire database consisted, what needs cleaning, what is questioned, what has been suggested for a merge, for a relocation and all your other statues, respectfully. This should be as easily accessed as the front page, as it could work as a general navigator instead of the particular search machine. It should also have a dynamic and accessible form to help users to find and monitor all the articles they need. An user chat forum or a discussion page would also be a good way to convey thoughts to other wikipedians. Teemu Ruskeepää 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedians have a destructive attitude for the debate

Everyone should be able to participate in the debate. However, now the committed members express rejective, intolerant and malicious attitude towards some writers. They do not explain their point of view purely concentrating on the issues, but also imply that some people should not bother them with certain point of views. The critic of the page Talk:Anti-gravity is a good example of this. Objectively, I'm not taking a position towards the claims of the counter arguments. I'm just pointing out the offensive style of the committed judges of the Wikipedia. You should also explain why you repeatedly erase links from that page.

Much of the deletion falls into unverified speculative theory, or spam links. If you visit gravity control you will see it is a film maker site requesting film materials. -MegaHasher 19:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Teemu Ruskeepää 18:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making a comprehensive discussion tree

I think that rather than burying old discussions into an inaccessible archive, the list should be organized. This way the discussion could expand without the need of archives. Make a categorial order which deepens in an orderly fashion. I've thought of a basic root of all the present headings in the article and a two permanent "control" categories: 1. Off-topic and 2. Additions and general quality. Depending on the article, the discussion categories should include all the present titles in the article and if necessairy, categories for "photos" and "sources", which are not displayed in the article's tree of contents .

Decided things

This is a new feature to my discussion tree structure, which makes conclusions valid and repetition unnecessairy. It improves my design, whose purpose is to eliminate the need for discussion archives. This will be added, I hope, at the end of every paragraph, where there will be a copy of the present section of the article. Decided things will be highlighted and the others are not. New articles will always be highlighted (decided) at first. If a user wishes to re-open discussion, the part will be unbolded, and futher arguments ensue at the end of the old discussion.

The discussion tree should be maintained simultaneously with editions of the discussion as well as the article. When editing the article, the "decided things" should be edited to correspond with the article. When editing the discussion, the "decided things" should be edited (highlight - unbold ) to show what is under dispute and what has been concluded. The editors may do this themselves, or then observers can do it, voluntarely.

The Wikipedia structure should be modified to include the present discussion headings in the discussion page, so that when a user starts a new discussion, he could choose a present heading, which together form a universal category. Also the "decided things" at the end of every main discussion heading, should be programmed to appear automatically every time someone adds a new heading to the article, along with the new heading, of course.

My idea of a discussion tree is new to Wikipedia, and I'm considering beginning it as an experiment first on small article with a few headings. However I have also begun doing it at Talk:Fidel_Castro and some other pages. Teemu Ruskeepää 18:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users

Support

Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat

I have moved this article to a subpage of your userspace. You can find it at User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat. Happy‑melon 10:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, and kudos to you for wanting to learn more about wikipedia. I moved the page for you because I wasn't sure if you would be able to do it yourself, as accounts which are very new (ie less than ten days) or which have few edits (less than twenty) are not marked as 'autoconfirmed', and so cannot move pages. If your account is marked as autoconfirmed, then at the top of most pages you will see (next to the 'history' tab) a tab labeled "move". Click on this tab, and you'll be taken to a screen asking you to specify a new page title and a reason for moving the page. What I did was to add your username and the User: prefix onto the front of the page title, but you can specify any title in any acceptable namespace. Once you click "move page" the page will be moved to its new title, leaving a redirect at the old title. Since redirects shouldn't be made from the article namespace to other places, I deleted the redirect I created (which is something only administrators like myself can do, from another tab at the top of the page labeled "delete", appropriately enough :D) to leave the old title unused. I hope this explains things for you - why not have a go at moving User:Teemu Ruskeepää/Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat to a different subpage in your userspace? Happy‑melon 11:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZOMG

You, sir, are A++ lulz. Thank you. --85.77.150.166 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Teemu Ruskeepää 10:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidel Castro

Thanks so much for taking an interest in this article. Please continue! Little word changes do make a big difference in neutralizing the point of view. I'm having to research the facts, as much seems to be taken for granted in the article. KarenAnn 12:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the positive feedback. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Teemu Ruskeepää, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Banyan Tree 16:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Objections

Speedy deletion of Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat

A tag has been placed on Internet's First Non-Anonymous Video Chat requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Blowdart | ^talk 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Enigma Titanium Limited

A tag has been placed on Enigma Titanium Limited requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Starbase 113 (Star Trek)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Starbase 113 (Star Trek), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Starbase 113 (Star Trek). MBisanz ^Talk 08:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enigma Bicycle

A tag has been placed on Enigma Bicycle, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind...I removed the tag. Still needs some cleanup and categorization, however. Thanks for the contribution. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected this to Enigma Titanium Limited. – ukexpat (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solar vehicle edits

Hi, I noticed that you erased the {{split}} tags on the Solar vehicle page. The tag means that someone has proposed a major change in the article, and wants people to discuss it. You didn't add a comment on the talk page or anything -- you just erased the tag. If you have an opinion regarding splitting the article, then please say so on the talk page rather than just squashing the tag. Thank you. Also, I think it's great that that group of people created a solar taxi, but it doesn't belong in the intro to a general article about solar vehicles. Perhaps you could create your own article and link to it from this one. Accordingly, I reverted your entire edit. Bry9000 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding you comment on Talk:Solar vehicle that the discussion page is disorganized, I see that you have been around Wikipedia for a lot longer than I have and am surprised at your comment. All of the talk pages are disorganized collections of random comments! They aren't articles, and don't get neatly organized like articles. What they are for is discussing ways to improve or change the article. 199.125.109.38 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaale/kaalee in Roma people article

Your recent edit raised doubts about this term. Confusingly, your edit summary said that this term is pronounced "kaalee". How it is pronounced doesn't matter; what does matter is how it's spelled. What is the correct spelling of this word? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Romani_people#Kaale.2FKaalee Teemu Ruskeepää 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements to Wikipedia

Please note that the above page created by you may fit the category of a user page rather than an article, as most of the article is your opinion (I also agree with many things in the article). You may want to consider recategorising the page. Please refer WP:NOT - "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthns (talk • contribs)

The article was moved for the reasons given above and under the avoid self-references policy. In any case the question of expert/non-expert has been discussed ad-nauseam and will go on being discussed so. Hunt around - find existing discussions on this topic and contribute. As to your complaints about index and categories, they are simply wrong - Wikipedia has exhaustive index, category and search facilities. And if you really think they are inadequate - don't complain - help improve them! -- RHaworth 10:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of a chat forum such as this [1]. When you open a gategory on your left, and follow up a link on the list which contain many comments, you'll find that there is a comprehensive and tidy tree for categories. Other point in that chat forum is that you can find the categories to browse very easily, they are the navigating machine. Suomi24 has no feature that lifts the old subjects with new messages to the top, so it's a flame and yell forum. There is no navigating machine on Wiki. Besides, others can't see this conversation because there is no navigating pages to display it, nor has any other page. Perhaps a front page with the navigating machine clearly located is necessairy? There is no point in taking part of some fragmentated discussion which has no indicators of it's activity nor it's parts accross the data base. Still I need the discussion in order to use Wikipedia. How do you see what's been modified? Is it an administrator privilege only? Teemu Ruskeepää 13:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you see what's been modified? Is it an administrator privilege only? It most certainly is not an admin privilege - it is available to all. Be more specific about what's been modified. As I look at this page, I see tabs for "history", "what links here", "related changes", "user contributions". You have a watchlist - which is private to you. (And there is Special:Recentchanges - not very useful). Far from lacking links, navigation and history, Wikipedia is drowning in it. I really do not know what you are complaining about. Try telling me some specific topic that you want to discuss and I will show you how to find it. But remember Wikipedia is not, primarily, a forum: it is an encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 19:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Perhaps the founder can see it in my textes. Teemu Ruskeepää 08:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. A specific request. The founder will never see it your textes if you just say perhaps here. But if you leave a message (with wikilinks to your textes) at User talk:Jimbo Wales then the founder will know that you would like him to see it your textes. -- RHaworth 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page system

This is your final warning. Please do not continue to deploy your talk page system of ordering on the page without engaging in discussion. Your continued doing of these actions is seen as disruptive by some editors, and I advise you are WP:CIVIL in your edits, and remember that nobody WP:OWNs any pages. A variety of discussions and polls have taken place on the page, all of which appear to be overall against your system, as well as an RfC. If you continue, it will likely be considered a violation of WP:POINT and that you are being continually disruptive, and you may be blocked from further editing. Thanks. Ian¹³ /t 08:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

It appears that most of those participating in the discussion page for Fidel Castro do not want to have the talk page altered to a new format. I'm not saying that your format is the wrong thing to do or the right thing to do, just that enough of them are unhappy with it that they may file an Rfc...which is a long and usually tedious affair. I saw another comment above that perhaps you should try this experiment on another talk page that is not as active as the Fidel castro one is...that would be my recommendation. Any questions I can answer, never hesitate to ask me...thanks!--MONGO 14:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no obligation to make everybody happy. I rather make them right. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not continue to use an unsupported system. If you continue to do so, then your actions may be seen as disruptive, which may lead to you being blocked. Happy editing! Ian¹³ /t 19:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've stopped, as you can see at Talk:Fidel_Castro. Thanks to the disputers, I confine myself in arguing for the change in every topic. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add anymore Move under category tree sections to the feet of talk page sections on Fidel Castro. This is over burdening the talk page with non content material and ultimately impeding the editing process. Your methods do not have consensus, will not be enacted and thus I recommend that you should refrain from further attempts to pursue this experiment. --Zleitzen 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People haven't said anything about not adding "move under category tree" sections. Just you. Besides, everyone who claims that I shouldn't do this, are wrong, in the sence of right of opinion of Wikipedia. Please don't suggest to everybody that what you say is what everybody has said. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

Teemu, a request for comment has been made about your editing on the Fidel Castro talk page, here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää.--Zleitzen 10:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Fidel Castro

Hi Teemu. Your restructuring of this talk page has been raised on the administrator's notice board Incidents page. After reviewing the talk page, it is evident that your continual refactoring of this talk page is against consensus, and is therefore disruptive. Please, now, stop. Proto///type 10:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't refactored the talk page since I began adding proposals os move under cateogory tree, which is long before the date of you message Teemu Ruskeepää 07:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

July 16th proposal to reorganize Fidel Castro talk page.

Please do not add your 'request for votes' to the Fidel Casto talk page, as you have done repeatedly in the past, most recently on July16, 2006. Also, it appears you are thinking about reorganizing that talk page again, please do not do so. Thanks. BruceHallman 14:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zzz... Teemu Ruskeepää 10:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba

Hi Teemu, Thanks for your comments on the Cuba page, several editors are trying to address the problem by keeping the main page free from overtly controversial subjects. One of the proposed solutions is to create 2-3 aubarticles. They should be a Cuba/US relations article, whilst many of the issues discussed in your Dan Christianson link can be found in this new subarticle Cuba and democracy. I would recommend that the Christianson link be available as a link the foot of that page, but not sourced within.--Zleitzen 16:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this here Teemu Ruskeepää 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu, I think your "discussion tree", though confusing at times - actually helps reduce tensions on the talk pages. At first I wasn't keen, but you may have hit upon a genius way to lessen problems of excessive "noise" on the Cuban article. --Zleitzen 07:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Zleitzen! "The quality of life is equal to the posture of one's home", or something. Teemu Ruskeepää 11:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu, I think the idea of seperate sections on the talk page has value and a future at wikipedia - however, your wider experiments with other aspects of the talk page may be too complicated for the Castro page. You may like to try it on a less controversial topic with less users.--Zleitzen 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but I could try it on the "intro" and leave the rest of the discussion optional. Bruce Hallman and the other one don't have any right to walk over the rest of us and hope that we won't return to demand our wishes. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu, your discussion tree experiment does not have consensus. Please allow users to continue editing comments in a way they find the easiest and most comfortable. Again, I recommend you experiment on a less controversial page with fewer users. --Zleitzen 16:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not relocate users comments on the Fidel Castro page again Teemu. Almost all users have expressed disquiet about your methods and would like to be left to use the page chronologically. You do not have consensus on this, and I am becoming increasingly concerned about your methods and your responses, notably this comment "I know I have seen this endogamy arrogance of the anglicans before in the finnish rugby league. Why don't you grow up, people". If you continue to move comments, you may find that you will blocked from editing on that or other pages where you have been relocating users comments. Thank you. --Zleitzen 09:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object the wording of you argument. By emphasizing how many people disagree (according to you), you can't suggest that I'm acting against other people's will. The thing has not been discussed yet. That is a sneaky strike of misleading the ignorent. You are even trying that one on the vote you created at Talk:Fidel_Castro

Teemu - have you noticed that no one on the Cuba pages supports your substitution of a subject tree for chronological ordering. Why are you ignoring this? Your declared left libertarian position is looking like a delusion. Putting something to vote and ignoring the result is egocentric libertarian - a step away from outright authoritarian. Please accept that you have no support in this and let things return to the way most of us want. MichaelW 15:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because I'm too libertarian to be the same as rest of them. I'm libertarian enough to challenge your feelings. Please argue rationally against my tree and you will find I'm right. You will also find that the traditions can be overcome. Also, I have never EDIT WARRED with the discussion page. Because of people's negative attitude, I have stopped the experiment and started a debate. It's you other users, who should be more libertarian, and answer me, rather than pursuing stopping the conversations, as Zleitzen tries to do, all the time.Teemu Ruskeepää 07:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teemu - your continued addition of edit tree proposals (dated today 3/7) shows you have not stopped the experiment. The rational argument has been given several times - that is, you have no-one supporting you on this. We have answered you. Your experiment has failed. By continuing to try to impose an edit tree without support you are edit warring. Meta edit warring maybe but that is no justification.

That is not a rational argument to my answers to the arguments against my tree. There are a few argument in the subsections, which I have counter-argued. Rational argument would to prove I'm wrong. Saying "no support" would be forcing me in an authoritarian way. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of telling other people they "should be" this or that, try accepting them as they are and working with that. Otherwise what you call 'libertarianism' is no more than you taking your egoism as a baseline for reality. MichaelW 08:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My egoism is my defence against the will of the ignorent. By accepting you as you are, I shouldn't accept what you want. Teemu Ruskeepää 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks

Please do not refer to another user as an "internet troll" as you have here to user Mensch [2] without justification. Such comments could be perceived as a personal attack are not welcome. --Zleitzen 08:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I will express how you seem to be such. Teemu Ruskeepää 07:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

I reverted the Talk:Havana page to the state prior to your accidental blanking. Your edits past that point have been lost, however. To revert, you would go in the page history page and edit+save an older version. On a side note, you don't have to alter/format older discussions (on talk pages), some editors take offence at that. Cheers. --Qyd 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I altered my own comment, which had no responses, and which is part of a on-going discussion, so it's not even in an archive, thus not old. Teemu Ruskeepää 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Lindh

I was the one who included the miscellani on Zoran Đinđić's assasination into the Anna Lindh article, which you have removed, citing that no connection between murders can be assumed. Well, of course it can not. While Đinđić's murder was evidently political in its nature, Lindh's killing was apparently an action of a madman. Regardless, it does not change the fact that she was present at the time of the assasination in Belgrade, waiting for a meeting with PM Đinđić - and that's the "interesting" information. No connection was assumed, hinted, whatever - I believe this was clear enough. Any other reason for removing that line? Best regards, Meelosh 19:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Why do you want to mention it? Is the only reason the Polish incident being another murder? Isn't that irrelevant to the subject? Teemu Ruskeepää 08:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Englannin kielioppi

Hei, voisitko ystävällisesti ottaa huomioon, että englanniksi, toisin kuin suomeksi, kirjoitetaan seuraavat isoina:

kuukauden nimet (February, vrt. helmikuu)
kielten nimet (Portuguese, vrt. portugali)
maista derivoidut tai kansaan liittyvät adjektiivit (The ~~portuguese~~ village --> The Portuguese village)

Sen lisäksi it's = se on, its = sen. Alkaa oikeasti käydä hermoilla vaihtaa nämä takaisin kielioppilliseen muotoonsa. -Yupik 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he he. Teemu Ruskeepää 15:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a personal attack to tell you what is correct English instead of what you're writing in articles. -Yupik 19:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Cuba

Sorry - I have reverted your additions again. Let's sort this out on the talk page first before altering the article.

The wording that you are quoting, where did it come from ? Is it your translation into English of the original Spanish ? Or of a Finnish translation ?

-- Beardo 13:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image source problem with Image:744px-AmériqueMéridionaleaugmenté.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:744px-AmériqueMéridionaleaugmenté.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. O sama K 06:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Slide (Thought control)

I have nominated Slide (Thought control), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slide (Thought control). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wperdue (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Solartaxi.jpg

File:Solartaxi.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Solartaxi.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Solartaxi.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ghj 050.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ghj 050.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teemu Ruskeepää Profiili3.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Teemu Ruskeepää Profiili3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Racist abuse isn't vandalism?

[3]. Err... please try reading again thro' this childish nonsense and tell me if it's vandalism or not. [4] [5] [6] [7] 82.152.214.154 (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]