User talk:Drieakko/The unfriendly

Revert warring

I saw you engage in nationalist-driven revert warring on Varangians. Please stop. This article suffered from similar approach a lot. If you have something to add, please propose your changes on talk, so that the community could endorse them. Regards, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that was a hasty conclusion and equally hasty action from you. You reverted my first edit, I rewrote it completely with sufficient references and then you reverted it again. Some war. Other people seem to have continued re-establishing my edits. There surely was nothing nationalistic in them. --Drieakko 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dvina flows from Perm?

Do you know what Perm is? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied to your talk page. --Drieakko 16:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That Cherdyn was a "capital" of the "princely state" is touristy stuff propagated by the local government in order to improve finances and attract tourists. I can see no primary sources confirming this version. Unless reliable sources for this claim are found, it should go. By the way, why do you make so many small edits on each article? Don't you know that "preview" button exists? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

So, what started as you presenting incorrect facts about River Dvina eventually turned into criticism of my edit style. Kindly avoid getting personal. --Drieakko 17:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mitä helvettiä?

Niin, kuinka tämä versio oli muka puolueellinen? [1] Erittele tarkkaan. --Jaakko Sivonen 07:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You have that issue commented in Talk:Treaty of Nöteborg. --Drieakko 07:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Neva as Russian fantasies

Drieakko, you have previously warned that original research in this project is not acceptable. Nevertheless, you prefer to discard the opinions of thousands historians who worked on the subject and launched a crusade to disprove the historicity of the Battle of the Neva. In case you ignore it, it is too common for a defeated side not to mention a battle they lost in their native records. For instance, Russian chronicles do not mention the Caspian expeditions of the Rus or the Battle of Orsha, but it does not mean that we should delete the articles as "unhistorical" or cry about one's "suspicions" in every second line. Such approach qualifies as tendentious editing. Furthermore, I'm concerned about the objectivity of 13th-century Swedish sources which are supposed to document the event. How many such sources do you know? How many Swedish sagas do you know? Why should they document their defeats for posterity? I may also note that such epithets as "Nevsky" are not given to rulers for nothing at all; but I see that such arguments won't convince you, especially as you know what you want to (dis)prove. This is rather sad, because wikipedians are not supposed to prove or disprove anything. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please indicate exactly what writing of mine discards opinions of thousands historians. I am in no way claiming that the Battle of the Neva did not take place. Whenever possible, I list facts pro and con whatever issue is at hand. Regarding the battle in question, there are plenty of open questions that are well attested in different publications with multitude of resulted speculations that are handled at least in Scandinavian publications. But shortly: the battle surely took place. It however seems to fall into the semi-historical category because the only information there is about it is from a biased source 100 years later. --Drieakko 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The Finnish Orthodox Church

Sorry, the removal of the infobox was a mistake. Would you put it back?--Tellervo 08:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! :) --Drieakko 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Diearacco, As you have taken away big part of what I have written, I start understanding you. You must be a Fenno-Ugrian soldier. I think the history is an area of both unright and right. No one can know and if you turn your back on it, there's no way to know anything at all.

I was telling about the time after the Viking period to 1809. You took it all away. It still has excisted. It was about 750 years Finland and Sweden was a same and only country. Sorry if I remind you. In the beginning there were no borders at all.

Sorry if i offended you, it really wasn't my point of view.

I'm going to try again. Please don't come with rubbish about my being wrong.

PL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Päivi Laakso (talk • contribs) 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a fre Encyclopedia but you are acting a king

Dear friend, You have sent me two warnings that look like a criminal record. The reason is that I have edited something in the history of Finland and Sweden. It looked like if I was charged!

The reason why you are angry is that I happened to delete a part of your text in misstake for months ago. I'm sorry about it and i'll put it back. Otherwise I don't like threaths or angry messages. And all the text you took away from me I'm going to replace again.

You do not own Wikipedia. The Wikipedia is a free Encyclopedia, free from churches, free from political athmospheres. If it bothers you that we are half swedes, don't read, please.

Love PL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Päivi Laakso (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what this is about. --Drieakko (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein as the editor above

I think it was a good nemesis to your utterly inconsiderate editing of the Finnish Orthodox Church, that you stumbled and fell flat with your proposed GA nomination. As to my supposed content forking, that is a lie! I haven't put anything from the websites you have enumerated to my article. As you can see from the references, - I have relied only on printed sources. --Tellervo 09:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied to your Discussion page. --Drieakko (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)