Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC

message: User 217.30.179.130, you stated:  "Somehow it seems to me that is bickering is not making any progress. We should start to wotk out towards a compromise."
Answer:  There is no compromising with lies and|or any other sort of foul play in Wikipedia, as there is not with terrorists in the world politics.  When you were earlier accused - also proven - of foul play, you admitted guilt.  Before that, you were proven of having offered misquotations, full with quotation marks.  Faced with the clear provided evidence, you - importantly - admitted guilt.  
When you visibly can be seen - perhaps - to have finished these sort of ugly habits, which fight against the nature and rules of Wikipedia, we can stop bringing these serious problems -having to do with you behavior - into daylight, in the related talk pages.
Now, it seem quite obvious, that these tactics of yours - including also lieing, it appears - are a part of your standard methods in your pushing of your personal views as facts and as a source of information for the Wikipedia community.  For instance, recently you offered a certain text as a source.  Later you admitted of being the author of that particular text, to a large extend anyway.
When you claim that a certain historian, for example, sees things a certain way, we simply cannot take you seriously, in the light of all that we've had to face with you.  Thus, for you to tell us to read such and such book simply is not a good enough response.  That is precisely why we have asked for you to give the name of the source, the page number and the exact quote, where such and such person presents these views, which you claim they do.  What part of this procedure cannot you understand ?  The burdon of proof is in your side, when you make these type of claims.
You generalize falsely, you stretch the truth, you set words in peoples' mouths, you offer misrepresentations and misquotations.  The latter mentioned ways of yours have been proven before on the Kven talk page, although in one case - for instance - you simply explained having misunderstood someone having claimed for the forefathers of the Kvens having spoken a certain language.  Backed by this "misunderstanding" of yours, you proceeded in offering a long lecture about linguistics, ethnicity, etc.  How far can you stretch the definition of misunderstanding ?  What may or may not you as easily "misunderstand" in your Kven history related views ?
This indeed appears to be one the biggest differences between our approaches.  I've categorically proceeded by for instance offering exact quotes from the texts written by e.g. the Professors Kyösti Julku, Allan Tiitta, Seppo Zetteberg and Jouko Vahtola, etc., as well as Othar and other authors of the Viking Age, including quotes from the Viking Age sagas and other historic texts, etc.  In case of all the modern time historians, and their related sources offered, the names of their works have been given in detail, also the publishing years of the works in question, and the page numbers of each of the quotes used.  When translations have been used, that too is usually clearly indicated, even in the talk page texts.
I do not recall you, or the users Fred-Chess, mikka (t) or Big Adamsky having so far offered a single quote from even one modern time historian, as a source for claims made in the Wikipedia's Kven text, or even on its talk page.  However, if there is such a case, could we please now receive the exact quote and the place where the quote was presented. 
The above makes it even harder to understand, why the Wikipedia users who have repeatedly asked for the above named users to come up with sources - even a single one - for their highly disputable claims, have now themselves been unfairly blocked by the above named user mikka (t).
A complaint of the methods of the users Fred-Chess and mikka (t) was placed on the Administrators' page, first on April 26, 2006, after which the users in question rose up to their defense by setting up a counter attack page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kven users RfC.  
Incredibly, for their defense, the two accused users brought the above named Big Adamsky and you.  Apparently, your attempt to hide your trail of continuous foul play has led you to use several Wikipedia user accounts.  Two comments of yours (4. and 5.), used for the defense of the accused Wikipedia users, Fred-Chess and mikka (t), on this defense page of theirs, were written from two different user accounts of yours.  They are presented as if they have come from two different users.  Your user accounts include at least the following:
:130.234.75.181
:130.234.75.167
:130.234.75.183
:217.30.179.130
Prior to this, you've been caught of having used exceptionally bad language in Wikipedia, including provably setting women's private parts in a sentence where they do not belong.  Now, to top it all, you've made a very serious claim of I having lied and having used "misquoting again and again".  If you now fail to prove this latest claim of yours, by providing the exact misquotions you claim me of having done (this time correct ones, please - not changed or distorted), will we now have your permission to begin calling you a lier ?
I have not misquoted you or anyone else.  Perhaps, in your opinion, there may have been a misinterpretation.  For such misinterpretation you can perhaps - at least in part - blame yourself, because you often appear to contradict yourself.  Here's yet another example:
1.  "During 800 - 1100 AD archaeological materials in the so-called Kvenland are very limited: only a handful of burials, some settlement sites, somes hoards and stray-finds. This is verified in the books by Torsten Edgren and Matti Huurre mentioned in the articles. The situation has not changed much after the 1960´s when Ella Kivikoski wrote the Prehistory of Finland, the only standard text of Finnish prehistory available in English."
2.  "Finally, some direct citations from the Finnish Wikipedia (my translation), apparently telling us how the present medieval historians (the post-Kyösti Julku generation) in Finland perceive this question:"
It appears as if you were originally claiming, that not much of the related views changed since 1960s, but later you were saying, that in reality there is already even a "post-Kyösti Julku generation" (his much quoted book, commented here, was written in 1986, and since then the Professor Emeritus Julku has been active and highly regarded historian up to date).  
Finally, the wondering minds are now questioning, whether or not you really understand the meaning of "quoting", and whether or not you understand when the quotation marks can or should be used.  Please, do no longer abuse the quotation marks, at least not to set words in my mouth, which - in reality - I have not used.
Art Dominique 13:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User [[User:217.30.179.130|217.30.179.130]] plays against Wikipedia's rules