User talk:Johan Magnus/Archive 1

Swedish names for Finnish Karelia

Please do not change places and things of the Finnish Karelian history into Swedish names, although you certainly are a patritic Swede.

You can take such a debate to the Swedish-language wikipedia, but if you are about to change all established names, then you are up for a very time-consuming work.

I am sure you will find other fun things to do here. :-))

--Johan Magnus 22:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, such talk does not belong to the Swedish Wikipedia. The english Wikipedia uses English names and names that are established or common to English. That does not mean Swedish names. Not either the Swedish Wikipedia. 213.243.157.114 02:20, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Romanian Jews and the annexation of Bessarabia

Would I mind...what? No, not at all. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]]

Done! --Johan Magnus 22:18, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mitteleuropa

Here we go then. From what you say you have more knowledge on the countries I know very little about (especially the case of independence of Estonia), but I think we both agree that the situation in Latvia and Lithuania was more or less marginal during the early 1920's. Anyway, we'll get to that later. I partially agree with what you say. Two of the most decisive factors were indeed the collapse of the Central Powers and revolution in Russia. The third one, however, was the support of the West, not the policies of Germany during the last year of WWI.

Note that the idea of Mitteleuropa failed on all fronts. When the Central Powers collapsed in late summer 1918 there was practically no power to enforce their ideas. In Poland by November 1918 there were still lots of German troops marching in all directions, but the war was over and the revolution in Germany started. The "Regents Council", an administrative body chosen by the Germans, was seen as a totally unacceptable civilian authorities imposed by Germany to secure the rear of the Eastern Front by most of the society. When the cease fire was signed the Council became absolutely obsolete.

What happened in Poland could be described as an almost bloodless revolution against the Regents Council. It tried to support Germany, but the withdrawing German army did not want to support it in any way. Moreover, the all-national movement led by various local "all-national" governments started disarming the Germans and Austro-Hungarians and the Regent Council was in no position to stop this (an interesting fact was that in November 1918 until Pilsudski returned from the Magdeburg prison we had a dozen or even more all-national governments in various parts of the country...).

When Piłsudski got back to Warsaw he took command over all the organisations he prepared for the collapse of the Central Powers: Polska Organizacja Wojskowa, Polish Socialist Party terrorists, various other groups of both armed and unarmed men who continued to disarm the German troops on their way home. The German units on the border with Russia were still somehow disciplined, but those behind the lines simply left their ranks and started to desert en masse. Apart from some isolated cases they did not offer any resistance to those unarmed kids. Anyway, Piłsudski was by then the most popular Polish politician, while the Regents Council was left with no political support nor any military power. Its members saw that they couldn't do anything more so they declared Polish independence (neither the first nor the last of the governments to declare Polish independence in 1918, but still the most famous) and resigned. After they resigned they ceded all their powers to Piłsudski.

So, to make long things short, everything that was built over the concept of Mitteleuropa fell apart like a house of cards in a matter of weeks. Nothing was left of it since there wasn't much to preserve. The Regents Council did not prepare any political pattern, did not gain any support or anything that would be preserved. Speaking of Polish independence as a result of its creation is totally misleading. The meaning of the Kingdom of Poland was purely symbolic. After the collapse of the Central Powers there was vacuum in the middle of Europe and someone had to fill it. The Germans couldn't do it and so couldn't their puppet governments. So yes, the independence of Poland was inevitable. With Mitteleuropa or without it the local governments would seize the power anyway. And the concept itself did not survive until 1920, not to mention 1939.

For more info on the topic see those links: [1] and [2].

You're right that the Kingdom of Poland governed by the Regention Council was more of a puppet state, but the whole concept of Mitteleuropa assumed the creation of a huge buffer composed of smaller states. Similar authorities were granted to Belarus: the local government controlled schools, courts and such. It also declared independence after the Germans left, but was soon left with no power and no support. In 1919 it practically ceased to exist. The Ukrainian experiment ended in a similar way to the Polish one with the only difference being that the opposition against the German-imposed government was armed and led to a civil war and total chaos.

Finally, the difference between a puppet state and a buffer state in this context seems purely geographical and not political. I can agree on either term. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 23:24, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate comment. I'm sorry to appear rude, but I've now not time to comment with the same degree of commitment - other duties in the life call, unfortunately. Meanwhile, I would propose that you make the experiment of thought and ponder what would have happened with these peoples that were considered ethnic minorities in the Russian Empire at the end of World War I, if it hadn't been for the effects of the German Mittel-Europa policy. Cheers! --Johan Magnus 08:25, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bukovina, Bessarabia 1940

"The annexed Romanian territories were inhabitated mostly by Romanians, with a significant Jewish minority also present. However, the inhabitants of Bessarabia were treated by the Soviet Union as romanised Ukrainians while the German authorities perceived a large part of them(? - or Romanians in general?) as ethnic Germans."

USSR annexed two regions: Bessarabia and Bukovina. Both had a large Jewish population (like the entire province of Moldova). On June 25, 1940, Ribbentrop wrote about those 100,000 Germans in Bessarabia and about German ethnics in Bukovina. Ribbentrop knew very well the ethnic situation in these regions and his reported figures were perversely false. He wrote: "Germany is of course interested by the faith of these Germans and it's waiting that their future to be ensured. The Reich leaders intends to do some propositions to the Soviet leaders, regarding the repatriation of these Germans, on the opportune time, (analogically with the Volhinia's Germans)."

The first Soviet ultimatum of June 26, 1940 spoke about ethnic situation of Bessarabia: "populated mainly by Ukrainians", ignoring the ethnic situation of Northern Bukovina. In the pre-war Soviet-Romanian talks, Litvinov promoted the idea of a large Ukrainian population in Bessarabia, and his figures seem to count the Jewish population as Ukrainian. However, the first Soviet census of 1940 revealed in Bessarabia a situation different that was previously thought by the Soviet leaders, so it was created a new Soviet republic, Moldova.

The German leaders did know the exact ethnic situation of these regions. The Soviet leaders had some mystified data, concordant with their revived imperial ambitious.

I've never heard or read about "romanized Ukrainians" expression. I hope these informations will help. Thanks for your interest. --Vasile 03:37, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

North Germanic Languages

Johan Magnus, I see that you reverted my reversion of User:Kenneth Alan's improvements. Kenneth Alan is a known troll who added a lot of strange information all over Wikipedia until he was banned for one year. Just consult his talk page. After your reversion the text still contains inaccuracies. Since you consider yourself to be well-informed enough, please check the facts.--Wiglaf 13:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Among many other things, you call Bokmål for "standard Norwegian". Well, this seems rather much of POV-pushing to me, and not really a good example of "accuracies". --Johan Magnus 13:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, edited too fast.

I'm not offended. Not easily in any case. I didn't check the roots-in-common page, that I reintroduced. That was probably bad. The notion of a wider spread of West Scandinavian would, however, be a good idea in my opinion - although I of course realize that this chiefly has implications with regard to historical linguistics. ...BTW, you might be interested: I do not consider myself extremely well informed. I've long ago taken A-level courses in linguistics and sociolinguistics, which is barely enough to give a hint of what the student doesn't know. --Johan Magnus 13:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure you are not confusing Bokmål and Nynorsk, or are you thinking of Riksmål which is virtually identical to Bokmål? Just work on it and please don't reintroduce Kenneth Alan's work.--Wiglaf 13:28, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes. To me, the Norwegian language has two (written) standards, Bokmål and Nynorsk. Wikipedia oughtn't take part in the Norwegian language strife. The difference to the wording in the article on Norwegian is the qualification: Bokmål may be translated standard Norwegian furter followed by explanations. --Johan Magnus 13:44, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. I was thinking of Bokmål as the de facto standard language, like in the article on Norwegian.

Or, maybe more npov, dominant standard or dominating standard? --Johan Magnus 14:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You could work on the article an improve such things.--Wiglaf 13:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or you could consider some of the changes I made? I think that would be at least as appropriate. :-)
(I've of course seen the article's talk page. I'm not impressed, neither offended, but I don't really see why I should put more work on that page right now.) --Johan Magnus 14:02, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I was just a bit annoyed. No offense. I can have a look at your improvements and reinsert some.--Wiglaf 14:06, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What about the article now?--Wiglaf 14:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Much better! --Johan Magnus 19:42, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Suomen Marskalla Kaarle Kustaa Mannerheim/Carl Gustaf Mannerheim

hello/moi Johan Magnus, can I ask why you changed the mother tongues of Mannerheim from Swedish and Finnish to Swedish only. As someone born in Finland who spoke both official languages of Suomi, they were both his mother tongue. He was a Finland-Swede and spoke Swedish first, but they were both the mother tongue of mannerheim and his country. User:Reefyj

Well, I don't know how you understand the term mother tongue, but in my understanding individuals rarely have more than one. From Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim's biography, it's quite clair that his was Swedish — which also was undisputable for his contemporaries in Finland (and in Sweden; if the Russians cared is beyond my knowledge and interest).

This was absolutely nothing controversial or unusual, although it is true that such circumstances are controversial in other cases of prominent Finns, there both the Finnish speaking and Swedish speaking populations of Finland can be seen to claim Runeberg, Lönnrot, Sibelius and Svinhufvud. It is in this respect important to note that their mothertounge only rarely is contested. However, it's not uncommon to see arguments along the line that although X had been brought up with Swedish (or Finnish) as his mothertounge, as an adult he revealed himself as a Fennoman (or Svecoman) (or for later generations, as Witting and maybe Mannerheim, a true Finnish patriot that didn't secretly lick the Swedes' boots), and should therefore not be considered a Finland-Swede.

--Johan Magnus 00:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adminship

I would be happy to nominate you at WP:RfA for administratorship at Wikipedia — of course only if you would accept a candidacy. The main advantage of that would be that vandalism is somewhat easier to revert for sysops than for non-sysops.

It would be good if you, before deciding, studied the Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. I may also warn you, that you may be perceived as too unexperienced due to low total count of edits. In my opinion, however, your edits are generally of high quality and your approach to dispute resolution seems exemplary.

--Ruhrjung 19:33, 2004 Nov 3 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll read and (then) tell. :-) --Johan Magnus 17:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Until tonight, I considered to thank you for your shown confidence, but decline. However, I changed my mind. My reasoning is as follows:

1. Other administrators may take on their relationship with Wikipedia as something similar to a full-time job. I wish to avoid that. I'm actually pretty confident that I'll not fall in love with Wikipedia or become a Wikipedia junkie. This may give reason to some opposition against my candidature — and if that results in a "failure", then no harm is done.
2. On the other hand, Wikipedians who get too involved in Wikipedia are also the most likely to get burned-out, to get easily disappointed when the project doesn't evolve according to their ideas, and consequently to discontinue. Less involved administrators might be more likely to ultimately become experienced administrators, which after all must be a better kind of administrators. :-)
3. I ponder if not Wikipedia has grown too much to make patrouling the "Recent changes" list after vandalism and graffiti a too demanding task. That means that Wikipedia in reality has to rely on discovering such disturbances by means of different Wikipedians' watchlists. One consequence of that could be that one wishes to see many more administrators with different sets of interest mirrored in their watchlists. Another could be an increased wish for "professionalism" from the side of the administrators. I am not quite sure, but I believe that I for now have come to support the idea that more administrators with maybe somewhat lowered demands on their competence is the lesser of evils, but I admit that I could change opinion on that point!
4. With respect to my personal happiness, I guess the (Lutheran) feeling of doing good for a good cause will balance the likely somewhat frustrated feeling of an urge to answer and serve people who ask for administrator help.

My "program" (if nominated and appointed) would be to neither avoid nor seek hotspots, as for instance pages in need of protection or users in need of friendly correction or ultimately blocking. I would strive to uphold a healthy balance between "maintenance" of pages on my watchlist and substantial additions to articles. I fully realize that this might be insufficient at RfA, but in such a case, no harm would be done and I would be equally happy, as follows of point 4 above. :-)

--Johan Magnus 00:37, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you've considered my proposal. Of course you'll be nominated! But I'm short of time at the moment, and it might be that it will last some days until I've understood the recent system at RfA. We'll see.
--Ruhrjung 18:47, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

We are in no hurry! I won't nominate myself. --Johan Magnus 07:52, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

jävla storsvenska överlägsenhetsfasoner!

User_talk:Halibutt#Finns

Was this really necessary? /Tuomas 17:14, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, maybe not. But you don't have to be upset over friendliness. That's unnecessary, too! :) --Johan Magnus 17:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm...

I'll try to consider that. :) /Tuomas 07:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Franco-British expedition Map

Ok, that sounds like a map I would be able to do quite easily. I don't know if I'll be able to depict the ice situation at that time, but that can always be added later. -- Jniemenmaa 08:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't demand ...request the ice situation at that time - only a simplified average distribution illustrating how Luleå harbour is closed for many months a year. :-)))

--Johan Magnus 09:18, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, ok.. :) Here is a first attempt. The links you mentioned will make it much easier to add the ice situation (I can expand the map a bit to show more of the Baltic Sea). Actually, I'am not really happy with the map, the scale is too small, but I quess it is better than nothing. :) -- Jniemenmaa 15:18, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good!

Thank you!

--Johan Magnus 07:50, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Presidents of Finland

Navigation boxes have now been added to all of the president articles. :-) /Camerong 05:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What would the world be like without guys like you? --Johan Magnus 07:51, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vistula

Take a look at Talk:Vistula please. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:52, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Diacritics

Sorry, but I can't help. English Wikipedia is currently not supporting the correct encoding for Central European languages, which means that my participation in that discussion would be pointless. Please let me know when the correct encoding is at last added - I'll be happy to participate in the discussion. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 17:07, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect you created at "Wigforss"

Hi, you created a redirect from Wigforss to Ernst Wigforss, but there is currently no article at Ernst Wigforss. (It may have been deleted since the redirect was created.) Wikipedia policy is to get rid of redirects to non-existent pages, and someone listed Wigforss on WP:RfD If you want the redirect to stay, you will need to create something at Ernst Wigforss (even a stub will do), or else the redirect will go away. If you do create the target, you don't have to do anything on WP:RfD (we'll eventually notice the target is there), but if you do, just delete the entry for Wigforss. Thanks! Noel (talk) 03:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I honestly don't understand the logic of what you're saying - "Redirects with missing targets may fill a purpose if covering for common misspellings" - that's fine, provided they point to an article that exists and that has the right spelling - "or serving to avoid the creation of multiple articles on the same subject" - that's fine too, provided they point to an article that exists on the same subject. Both cases require there to actually be an article. Furthermore, I honestly don't think that redirects that point nowhere are doing anything useful. Sorry, I just don't see the point. If it's not worth writing an article about (even just a one-line stub), why should it be worth redirecting to an article about it that doesn't even exist? Note that every article I listed for deletion had a missing/non-existent target at the time that I listed it for deletion - if they actually have targets or the authors add subsequently them (as in this case) then I'm completely happy for them to stay - it's the act of pointing nowhere that I was objecting to. All the best, -- Nickj 09:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's more of a nuisance to merge two articles (when discovered) than to live with redirects to not yet written articles.

— A good thing with the social aspects of Wikipedia is the recognition of views and thoughts that we honestly don't understand the logic of (yet). --Johan Magnus 17:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hello?

Hi Johan

I replied to your questions on my talk page but I haven't heard back yet. I'd like to work with you to clear up the appropriate pages. Let's talk.

Steve Steverapaport 18:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I might be somewhat slow when I have to express myself in a foreign language! The comment is on its way :-)) --Johan Magnus 18:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am hoping that the small edit I made to Swedish language addresses your concerns. I'm quite certain about the vocal stress issue, which we seemed to agree on, so I confined myself in Swedish language to talking about that.

in Melodic accent, I would maintain that the English way of distinguishing wetsuit and wet suit *in my example sentence* (not in just any context) clearly contains both the acute and grave accents in at least the Stockholm dialect, both in stress and pitch. But if you can ask an English speaker to say these things and they don't sound right to you, you are welcome to either confine my example to the Stockholm dialect, or remove it altogether if you think it's confusing.

Thanks for the help and I hope we'll keep in touch. I live in Stockholm now so my continuing observations on Swedish will, I hope, become more accurate.

Mvh, Steve

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Can you help? Voiceless_dorso-palatal_velar_fricative

Hi Johan --

I'm trying to add and complete an article on the Swedish-only sound 'sj', which is currently marked as a Voiceless_dorso-palatal_velar_fricative.

I got this term from some previous contributor, but it doesn't seem right to me since you can't pronounce it properly without rounding and narrowing the lips.

Shouldn't it be a Voiceless dorso-palatal labio-velar fricative or something? I don't know the system for naming but maybe you and your friends do...

Best regards, Steverapaport 16:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pitch vs. melodic

Do you happen to know whether the accents in the Serbo-Croatian bunch are better described as melodic, or as pitch? Thanks. --Joy [shallot] 23:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

;-) No, I don't know Serbo-Croatian, but since it's an Indo-European language, I am prepared to bet on melodic accent.

--Johan Magnus 08:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

von Herwarth/Really?

After reading your article on vH, I understand that in your sources you explicitly found an information, that no European government was informed of the RMPact? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:38, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No concerned government informed by Roosevelt's administration - at least not via official channels - and at least not while it was still relevant. But, actually, you can not ever successfully prove the negative like this. So far I've read myself, I've only learned that the message is claimed to have been cabled to Washington; I don't know that it actually reached Roosevelt, even less how he and his advisors reasoned if they decided to keep it for themselves. There is, for instance, in such cases always the possible intention to protect the source.

--Johan Magnus 08:06, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Two of your articles, actually: Hans von Herwarth is linked, too. :) 68.81.231.127 14:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote diffs

Hi, and thanks for voting on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I just checked all edits, and the software is sometimes acting funny. Could you check these diffs [3] and [4] to see if all votes are placed where you wanted them to, or if a vote was removed accidentially. If everything is fine, then never mind, and thanks for voting -- Chris 73 Talk 00:46, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed acting strangely.

User:John Anderson is not unlikely the same John Anderson who has contributed in s.c.nordic and s.c.baltics for some years. Knowledgeable and serious and long awaited at Wikipedia.

;-)

--Johan Magnus 01:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sami (Finnic)

Not all Sami peoples have been nomadic through out history. For example, Coast Sami (sjöfinnar, Sea Finns) were stable dwellers whole time. I don't understand why you write differently in Finnic.

Secondly, I don't understand why you remove the 'non-Ugric' interpretation of Finnic when it does so.

// Sincerely, Rogper 18:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jag tror det är bättre att vi försöker ta det här på svenska. Jag förstår nämligen inte vad du menar. Vänliga hälsningar! /Johan

Nazi Party

Yes, I know there's lots of nuts who try to say the Nazis were socialist. I don't think the answer to that is to pretend that their name doesn't have the word "Socialist" in it. That said, I would personally prefer to use the full name for the party, but to have the ideology discussed at Nazism, as currently. Almost all of our articles on political parties are located at the location that they called themselves, rather than at a nickname. And "NSDAP" or "National Socialist" are certainly frequently used to refer to the party as such (rather than to refer to individuals, or whatever, when I agree that "Nazi" is more commonly used than "National Socialist".) john k 13:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:River_Vuoksi

Hej Johan! I moved discussion and replied. hejda Tobias Conradi 20:11, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)