User talk:JdeJ

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JdeJ, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Jpe|ob 11:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Finnish people

You wrote: "Find a source for your claims. Inserting unsourced personal opinions is not in accordance with what Wikipedia stands for". But there is a source, the Folkting link! And why does it matter whether it is the first or the third sentence? During the Swedish rule in Finland (12th or 13th century until 1809) Swedish was the language of the state affairs and the nobility (at least from the New Age), it was the only official language. Because of this many Finns who wanted to climb the social ladder changed their language to Swedish. Civil servants worked in Swedish, so language change was a must for many. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that some Finns changed their language to Swedish during the Swedish rule and that some Swedes changed their language to Finnish during the end of the Russian rule. That a significant proportion of both language groups have an ancestry that partially lies within the other language group is obvious. What I take issue with is claiming that the origin of Finland-Swedes is mainly due to Finns changing language. That is not the case, at least I've never found any source claiming that. JdeJ 15:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would say that this section in fi.wiki supports that: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suomenruotsalaiset#Suomenruotsalaisten_alkuper.C3.A4 It mentions the Swedish immigrants in the Middle Ages, but seemingly puts more value on the language change (notice the word kuitenkin - however). --Jaakko Sivonen 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Proving one thing in Wikipedia just with another section of Wikipedia does not correspond to external sources. That paragraph does not say that Finland-Swedish ancestry is mainly due to language change. Even if it did, that would not be an external source. JdeJ 19:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It does imply it, since it talks mainly about language change, only briefly mentioning immigrants from Sweden. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for your comments on my page regarding Finnish people. The other user clearly has some agenda and is not only rude, but not acting in the spirit of Wikipedia. He speaks of me using non-sense, but himself uses compeltely unreferenced claims and his own very controversial POV. Not only this, his personal attacks aren't that welcome either and I will report him to the admin. if it continues in such a manner. Thanks anyway and its always good too see more Christians on Wikipedia, ciao. Epf 21:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a lie spreading , anti-Finnish agenda pushing person who knows virtually nothing about Finnic peoples. I will speak my mind, I have a one month block in Finnish Wikipedia for critisizing the Svekoman users there, so I don't mind going down fighting against Finn-haters here as well. --Jaakko Sivonen 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason why Epf would be anti-Finnish or a Finn-hater and I attribute those comments to your lack of perspective. Once again, you have to accept that people can disagree with you. Whenever someone goes against your personal opinions, you answer with abuses instead of engaging in a civilised discussion. It's not gaining you any credibility. Further insults by you on this page will be deleted, but you're always welcome to make constructive comments both here and elsewhere. JdeJ 10:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Majorities and minorities in info boxes

You claimed that no other people article mentions them in the info box, but in the Swedish people it does say "87% of Sweden is composed of Lutherans". Are you going to remove it too? And why should the box not contain that important information? People might take one look at the article and think that there are about as many Finnish and Swedish speakers and Lutherans and Orthodoxes. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, I just think we should be consistent. If you want to have it in, I'd suggest you give the acutal percentages within brackets instead of saying 'small minority'. It's both more informative and looks better. JdeJ 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To my recollection I put it in percentages first, but you deleted it... Aiotko poistaa maininnan luterilaisten ruotsalaisten osuudesta väestössä artikkelissa ruotsalaiset, vai et? --Jaakko Sivonen 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Right you are, although that was because you only gave percentages for the languages, not for the religions, making it seem like a targeting of Finland-Swedes Insert percentages for all four groups if you want, I won't touch them. En, en aio poistaa sitä ruotsalaisten artikkelista mutta minun mielestäni artikkeli olisi kyllä siistimpi ilman sitä. JdeJ 18:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tehty (prosentit vuoden 2005 tilastojen mukaan). --Jaakko Sivonen 19:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tein vaan pikkusen muutoksen niin että näyttää paremmalta, tekstiä ei tarvita.

Hello

Is it you, Litany? --PaxEquilibrium 18:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry. Never heard about anybody by that name. This is the only name I'm using on Wikipedia. JdeJ 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You're getting pretty close to violating the three revert rule. Please have a look at this essay and remember that editing an encyclopedia isn't a matter of life and death. I've blanked other warnings to your user page per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because they accuse you of vandalism when your edits are not vandalism but part of a content dispute. Durova 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik calling me a racist

Per your request I have re-introduced Tajik's comments in their entirety. This was not a personal attack on Tajik, but a summary of what Tajik had said. You added a NPA warning to my page, when no one ever asks Tajik to stop personally attacking other users, especially Turks and Pashtuns.

I have attempted to follow WP dispute resolution process in dealing with Tajik, by discussing the issues with him, and by withdrawing from the dispute as advised. This has gotten me mocked, harassed, and personally attacked by Tajik, and administrators who support him.

But no administrator ever calls Tajik to task no matter how outrageous his behavior--and he is continued to allow to flame, call other users racists, not support his arguments, do anything he wants to in creating a hostile atmosphere at Wikipedia for Turks and Pashtuns.

He can ask an administrator to block a user for calling him a Nazi, and a couple of administrators jump to the task. Yet he calls me Taliban supporter, much worse than a Nazi for an Afghan, and nothing.

I did get the message about the dispute resolution process at Wikipedia, though: Don't bother!

KP Botany 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the user so I can't comment on his actions. The point here is that possible wrong-doings by other users does not grant any of us the right to do wrong in return. If you feel that you have been attacked, I understand that you are frustrated although it still does not justify attacking others. I'm glad to hear that you edited the part I commented upon. However, you had no right to remove the warning I had put on your page, but I'll put that down as inexperience and not bother about it. Just remember it for the future. JdeJ 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't I remove the warning? It's my talk page. And Tajik simply removes them from his talk page, and no one tells him he can't do that.

And, again, I did NOT attack him, I simply abbreviated his attack on me, I didn't make anything up, it's all there, even worse than my abbreviated from. How can you not know Tajik? His are the racist words posted on my talk page, that you forced me to put back on my talk page.

So Tajik can call me a racist, and Taliban-supporter, and that is NOT an attack, but if I abbreviate what he wrote, accurately saying what he said, I'm personally attacking him? How is that? They're his words, not mine.

Again, Wikipedia dispute resolutions should certainly come with a warning: don't waste your time, because more experienced users will simply effectively attack and harass and bully you while you're doing so, via administrator-fishing. What a horrendously unfair double standard. Tajik can post the comments ABOUT ME, but the same comments, if altered by me in the least bit, are a personal attack against him. That's outrageous.

But there you go, I've put it back up, Tajik calling me a racist left and right, because, after all, I wouldn't want to violate any Wikipedia policies about allowing other editors to personally attack me. What an incredible waste of time, too.

No matter what I do, Tajik will relentlessly continue harassing me with the assitance of administrators like you, who say that Tajik's words are not a personal attack when said by him, but are one when quoted by me.

KP Botany 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving Raasepori Castle to Raseborg Castle

Hello. Please use the move function, instead of copy-and-paste, when renaming a page. This avoids splitting the page history in several places. You should also state the reasons for moving an article in the summary or on the article's talk page. Thanks. --KFP (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, both advices are very good and I will follow them in the future. Thanks again! JdeJ 11:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for the Treaty of Fredrikshamn revert, I was looking at Jaakko's edit, went away for a while and returned and reverted, I didn't notice that you had been there.--MoRsE 23:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I guessed that might have been the case. I'm getting quite tired of the same pages being vandalised by the same user over and over again, guess I'm not the only one.JdeJ 23:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he's doing the same in svwiki, fiwiki and wikiquote too...MoRsE 23:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? Well, I'm not surprised to hear it. One apparent flaw in Wikipedia policies is that a block in one language isn't carried over to the other versions.JdeJ 23:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

what does Finnic stand for when actually used?

I have for some years used to refer to Wikipedia articles. They do, however, have a tendency to change.

In some cases, this means that they not only give different answers from time to time, but they do actually answer different questions from time to time.

I'm not sure this is advantageous.

In any case, it does without any doubt disencourage me from referring to Wikipedia.

Specifically, the term "Finnic" is one of those obscure concepts that I've been happy to find explained at Wikipedia. There was once a sentence that, at least for me, was much enlightening about how the concepts Finnish/Finnic could be used in English by Finns, en explanation that helpfully made some wordings I'd come across not only understandable to me, but reasonable.

Paraphrasing, to distinguish between historically nomadic (or whatever) Lapps and agricultural Finns.

Using the history-tab, I browsed and found you editing this paragraph away with the explanation that you rewrote to make the text "more up to date".

OK.

You may be right.

I've no privileged knowledge about what the term means, but I dare say that as far as I can judge, your contributions have not made this article more useful to people in my situation.

Regards!

Christopher Hansen —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.224.17.83 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

I would have to disagree with you. It is true that the article may be less straightforward now than before my edit, but I see no point in an article being straightforward and wrong. The paragraph that I rewrote did not correspond to reality and contradicted all modern research. JdeJ 10:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

67.165.216.16/Primetime

67.165.216.16 is hard-banned user Primetime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you see any edits by that IP or by users who appear to be him please contact me or another admin. All of his contributions should be reverted on sight. -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information! JdeJ 13:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

"När finskan rensades ut ur Norrbotten"

Article Northern Sweden was Finnish up to the 20th century. The Swedes commited an ethnic cleansing by forcing the original Finnish population the Swedish language and indentity. "Det finskspråkiga Norrbotten har genomgått en etnisk "reningsprocess"." When is Sweden going to give the area to the Finns? --Jaakko Sivonen 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I have no idea why you post this here, it's of no interest to me. I also suggest you check up on what ethnic cleansing means, as you clearly does not understand the term.JdeJ 21:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The writer him/herself writes "en etnisk "reningsprocess"". So... --Jaakko Sivonen 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I posted this: to remind everyone who are the original people on the both shores of the Bothnic. --Jaakko Sivonen 22:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As far as science (as opposed to nationalist fantasies) can tell, the same people have been living in Scandinavia for thousands of years and their languages are unknown. Later in history, the arrival of Indo-Europeans and Finno-Ugrians meant that these languages were adopted, but the population remained the same. As for the first languages known to be spoken in the region, the first known language spoken in what is now Northern Sweden and in all of Finland except the Southern coast was the Sámi language(s). The first language known to have been spoken in Southern Finland and further south in the region was a Indo-European Baltic language. Finnish arrived later late from the east, just as Swedish arrived quite late from the Southwest.JdeJ 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Inaccurate and offensive"

How exactly is the map you removed from Europe inaccurate and offensive? JIP | Talk 07:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, I should have explained it on the talk page. The text of the map is 'Countries of Europe in local languages'. Yet it only gives the Spanish name for Spain, not the Catalan, Basque or Galician names. I don't see the Hungarian name of Romania despite over a million Hungarians calling Romania home. Even if the text was changed to say 'Countries of Europe in official local languages', the map would still be wrong. It gives all the official languages of some countries but not of others. Finland is just as bilingual as Belgium, yet I see only a text saying Suomi on this map. That is why the map is inaccurate. It is also why it is offensive - it is very offensive to the millions of us people who have lived for hundreds or over a thousand years in a country to find a map that does not recognise our existance and equal rights in our countries. JdeJ 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

JdeJ, thank you for the sweet message on my talk page. I never thought of us as "campers", maybe more like a bunch of cyberspace hitchhikers, searching for our scholarly guides to the galaxy. ;) Being in a camp, even if it's located in outer cyberspace, is too confining for a free-roaming spirit, eh? Pia 19:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you are interested

In case you are interested, there is a proposal to move an article about a 97% ethnic Hungarian settlement in Romania to its native Hungarian name. The town is called Székelyudvarhely by locals and Odorheiu Secuiesc by Romanians. For more, see the talk page of the article. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight. Information about Hungarians in Romania can be found at Székely, Hungarian Autonomous Province, Hungarian minority in Romania. --KIDB 06:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Agnes Dereon addition to House of Dereon

What weasel words are you referring to? Relir 10:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Nation AFD

Hi- I left a comment on the AFD for Father of the Nation that you started. I would agree that some of the entries are suspect. However, for Donald Dewar it is a relevant term that is used frequently and I have added sources from the BBC and the Guardian to back this up. Thunderwing 20:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like it is going for a delete consensus so far. I have no particular wish to keep the article, although I would consider a partial merge to Founding Fathers for some like Dewar and maybe Washington and Ghandi (although I recogonise more sources on the concept of the name rather than its use). Now Mother of the Nation is a different matter...! Thunderwing 09:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

accusation...

You are accusing me of falsifying articles and that is against wikipedia policies.. first of all, I will give you some links. I am not pro Yugoslav, I am totally neutral and have all sources to back up my claims.. First regarding Austria-Hungary rule on Bosnia-Herzegovina. It was administered and handed over by the turks in 1875 and then fully annexed in 1908.. this does not mean however that south slavs felt any less "dictated" until the original annixation point. Regarding Gavrilo Princip, he himself declared that he was a Yugoslav AIMING FOR ALL SOUTH SLAV unification.. (read here: http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip).. And I am sure you are aware of the Ilirski Pokret (illyrian movement from Croatia that wanted to unify all south slavs)

Yes, I have accused you of falsifying articles. While one should be careful with accusations, I must say that it seems safe to do so in your case. You have removed a sourced statement from a credible source around ten times, just because you don't like the fact. You say you are totally neutral and have sources, but your edit history says something else. You have numerous edits where you have replaced people's nationality with a Yugoslav nationality, yet not one single edit where you have replaced a Yugoslav nationality with any other. You almost never give any sources, more often you replace sourced facts with your own unsourced facts. You have been adding pure nonsense to a number of articles, with no sources to back it up. To conclude: yes, I have accused you of falsifying articles and I think anyone having a closer look at your edit history will be bound to agree with me. That is not to say that all you're edits are wrong, far from it, but please start providing sources for your claims and stop removing sourced facts. JdeJ 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD for West Germany football team

Was your last comment specifically aimed at my last post?

If so, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but aside from the nom's not always productive tone, I think that all evidence presented in this AfD supports deletion. Frankly, I don't know what more to prove if no reliable source has ever made this distinction before. Malc82 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. No, my comment was only aimed at the nom's contributions, not at your posts. I don't agree with you on the topic itself, but I have no problem at all with the way you are presenting your opinion, and thus no intention to comment on your posts. JdeJ 16:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Article

Everything in the article is sources. Why do you keep adding things that are mentioned in the article. Check the sources.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 (talk • contribs) 20:14 31 May 2007.

To begin with, it would be easier for everybody to follow if you would sign your contributions and if you would mention which article your thinking about. I guess it's Yugoslavs. The so-called source for Princip, inserted by you, is to a link that in turns incorporate the Wikipedia page on Princip, creating a circle-argument. I wasn't the one who first inserted the fact-tag, but I fully understand the user who did so.JdeJ 00:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Princip stated he was Yugoslav, he was in cooperation with bosniaks and croats who aimed for unification of a south slavic nation (http://www.bookrags.com/Gavrilo_Princip Quote: "I am a Yugoslav nationalist, aiming for the unification of all Yugoslavs, and I do not care what form of state, but it must be free from Austria." . Also, Tito was the first to put forth a resistence in Yugoslavia and was hailed by great briton and acknowledged by other super powers (http://www.trussel.com/hf/tito.htm). Now please stop changing the article to your own point of view.

I haven't 'changed' the article to my own point of view, I've merely added a fact-tag and a dubious-tag after to statements that appear to be vague and erroneous respectively. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly vandalised a number of pages to insert your own Yugoslav-agenda, overriding the concensus formed by many responsible users. That you do so using two different accounts only add to reduce any credibility you might have had. JdeJ 17:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am providing you with facts, clear and very easy facts to comprehend. If you wish I can add the sources into the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.129.28 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"fixing" redirects

Please see WP:REDIRECT#Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken. Redirects should not be "fixed" if they work. There could be a reason why certain links are linked to in a particular way. For the particular case you are probably referring to, it is conceivable that comparable statistics on metropolitan areas using a single methodology could be developed in the future and the UN list of agglomerations may become different from such a list of metropolitan areas. So, unless the link you are fixing specifically refers to "urban agglomerations" (which is what the UN list claims to be), it is best to leave links to "metropolitan areas" alone as these two concepts are not exactly the same. --Polaron | Talk 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish revitalization

While I agree that it is probably the case that the irish revitalization hasn't been as succesful as the initiators hoped it cannot be declared an unequivocal failure until someone does a study evaluating its results together with its intended purposes. I am fairly sure such evaluations have been published and they must be included when making such statements. Read the first point of WP:SOURCES#When_to_cite_sources - and please understand that this statement is likely to be contested, particularly in the wording that you have written - which doesn't allow at all for different interpretations. The parenthesis attributing the irish language in Northern Ireland mostly to "nationalists" is also problematic and I think you should remove it since it cannot be proved and is a weasel phrase.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. First, I haven't written any of the sentences in the article, merely restored them - but of course I think they are correct, otherwise I wouldn't have done so. I see that you are Danish and obviously an expert in linguistic matters, but I hope it's not unpolite to assume that you haven't specialied in Irish and the socio-linguistic situation of Ireland? The clearly stated aim of the Irish revival was to make Irish the primary language of Ireland, just as Hebrew managed to be revived to become the primary language of Israel. This was the aim of both the Gaelic League and the founders of the state when Ireland became independent. As I'm sure you know, this has not succeeded no matter how one looks at the situation. In case the revival would have resulted in parts of Ireland becoming Irish speaking and other parts not, the result could have been regarded as a failure (Ireland still not Irish-speaking) or a success (Irish restored as the main language in parts of the island). Unfortunately (my personal opinion), nothing of the kind ever happened. Not only did the revival fail to bring back Irish as the community language to any community - Irish has even continued to loose ground to English so that some areas that were Irish speaking when the revival movement started are English speaking today. The Irish revival never succeeded in reviving Irish as the main language even in one small town anywhere in Ireland, yet alone bring back Irish as the language of Ireland. For this reason, it seems entirely uncontroversial to say that the revival failed - this is certainly what native Irish speakers themselves are saying. JdeJ 09:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response and sorry for assuming that you were the original writer. I have met native Gaeilge speakers (who may or may not be "nationalists") who say that gaeilge is the "language of ireland" and don't even find the idea of a revitalization to be a question - of course the irish language should be taught in irish schools is what they say. They would certainly be at odds with the notion of an outright failure. I cannot imagine that it will be difficult to find sociolinguistic publications describing the apparent lack ofsuccess of the irish revitalization strategies in more balanced terms - and if no one else does so, I will do so my self and untill then let the {{fact}}-tags stay as a reminder. Anyway the way it stands it looks like northern ireland is the place with most irish speakers which is incorrect since most populous gaeltacht areas are in western ireland were some counties have as many irish speakers as 50%. A more balanced statement about the irish revival would adress this fact and also adress the fact that a language revitalization process can have other goals than making a language the new community language - for example reversal of language loss, reversal of negative language attitudes etc.

Thanks again, I agree with most of what you say. It's true that many Irish speakers, and others, say that Irish is the language of Ireland - this may be a historical view or a wish for the future, but is never used to claim that Irish is the main spoken language at the moment. It's also true that most of us eagerly supports the teaching of Irish. In fact, it's people with these views who are most likely to consider the revival something of a failure, due to wishing that Irish would have become the main language. As you say, it shouldn't be too hard finding sources. I'm on vacation right now and cannot check my own books, but a look into Reg Hindley's The Death of the Irish Language would give ample material. Not that the book is very good, but still. I fully agree with your last sentence, language revival can have many different goals - but the stated aim in Ireland was to restore Irish and unfortunately it failed. JdeJ 11:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

There is this man, admin Russian Mikkalai, who impose his POV on Transnistria. As he's a Russian he wants to divide Moldova who is a UN state, and to create Transnistria as a recognized state. They are trying to impose this POV by any means. You'll be blocked if you revert him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.141.109.205 (talk)

This is an activity of a banned user:Bonaparte famous of aggressive sockpuppetry and trolling from open proxies. I strongly suggest you not to dive headlong into topics you have no previous inolvement without looking into talk pages first. `'Míkka 15:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted Vandalism

Hi! I have just reverted some vandalism on your talk page for you. :) -- Stwalkerster talk 09:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your not well

Do you forget you are the one who accused me of being a racist, so please relax, grow up and back off. I added depth to the History of Europe, the article has nothing to do with Democracy, so let it go...Do you deny Constantines influence on Christianity too?? If so we have major issue, report me all you want, I did nothing to you and I have done nothing wrong, I gave a good discussion filled with facts, dates, names, references...while you scream and sent me threats...I wonder who is going to be guilty here?? I have done nothing wrong but added much needed depth to the long history of Europe, so that is all I have to say to you...Please don't send me your angry messages anymore, thanks(Scipio3000 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Also how can I possibly edit the page and clean it up with you deleting it every time I get going...at least let me present it to you in a finished product, before you A) delete it, and B) Flip out on me, thanks(Scipio3000 22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

I'm feeling quite alright, thanks. Yes, when you start talking negatively about a whole people, as you did about the Germanic peoples, that is racism. Racism = looking down at a people. And could you perhaps find an angry message that I've sent you? You have accused me for a host of things, none of which has got any truth or even any relevance. Pointing out the roots of European democracy in Ancient Greece is not equal, or even close by any margin, to hating Romans. I've never even met a Roman, and I judge individuals by their actions, not peoples based on what some of their compatriots may do. You, on the other hand, have attacked people of my religion and people from my country just because you disagree with me. That is racism, like it or not. I've done nothing of the kind, that's why I've reported your very severe accusations. JdeJ 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Look I don't want this to get out of hand, I am only trying to present people with the most factual, non biased and informative article on Europe, so when people are done reading they have a good overview of Europe and Rome plays a large Role in Europe. The Romans were an international presence from 250 BC to 476 AD and then with the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire, it is hard to argue or take that away...to do so is robbing people of factual history.

In saying that I mean you no harm or disrespect, so I hope we can work on this together, thanks(Scipio3000 23:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I agree with you. Rome influenced Europe more than any other country and that should be reflected in the article. JdeJ 23:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks but I still want your input, If you feel it needs cleaned up or have any advice let me know, I want to give good depth on the Long History of Europe without spending too much time or not getting to key points. I hope I didn't offend you and thanks for being understanding.(Scipio3000 23:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC))

Europe

I have asked Scipio3000 to tone it down a bit. I would ask that you maybe step back for a few hours and let the heat subside. I am sure you both can and should work together. Your comments seem calm but let's diffuse things a bit before we have real problems. Thanks! JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Migration

You know, I've been interested in crackpottery for a long time. Accordingly, some of your ideas are of considerable fascination to me.

As for ancestors of Finnic people being among the first in Europe, this is not really so bold a claim. As you recall, in the Northern Eurasia, agriculture was rather problematic before development of domestic rye (and a few other, younger grains). Accordingly, the people inhabiting roughly the path taken from those northern people, including those that ended up becoming Fenno-ugric, was considerably nomadic in nature for considerably longer time than those of the more Southern Indoeuropean people that farmed the Fertile Crescent. This meant that their migration was strongly influenced by migration patterns of game -- such as deer -- and relatively slow, but also relatively steady. For various reasons, such as greater wealth leading to more common warfare, Indoeuropeans tended to migrate faster, and in more interesting patterns -- which, in turn, caused them to start colonising Europe somewhat later. Digwuren 18:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)