Talk:Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kilde's rescue by extraterrestrials

This section could use a lot of work. And the quoted text at the end of this section either needs to get corrected for typos, or have (sic) inserted to show it's not a mistake introduced by the person quoting. Also, a link to the source is needed. --Kristjan Wager 11:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the lady really notorious and well-known for UFO conspiracy stuff? Dr Zak 1259, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

She is leading UFO activist in Finland. --Zzzzzzzzzz 23:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, she is really famous in Finland.

She is also a total nutcase86.40.170.87 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not call people nutcases! Its inappropriate, unprofessional and disrespectful. It also evidences a heavy bias. It implies an assumption that everybody who makes unusual claims and statements must be mad.

Objectively: It is an unlawful and a punishable difamation, when someone acusses another person of being paranoid or schizophrenic or so.

Umm, unless the person is paranoid schizophrenic as obviously demostrated by her paranoid schizophrenic activity. But surely she would never subject herself to evaluation by real doctors because "they" are part of the conspiracy too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.30.178.76 (talk) 08:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

At the moment this article looks like an attempt at character assassination. This woman may make some unusual claims and statements - but these need to be referenced. This article at the moment discredits wikipedia and lends credence to criticisms, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.10.67 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be disrespectful to call her a nutcase, but it is accurate. It is not a punishable defamation in any jurisdiction that I am aware of, certainly not on what is here a discussion board. CharlesKiddell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

Namecalling, smear and character assassination is the sign of a juvenile mind, if one cannot stick to topic one has lost ones own credibility. As for unidentified flying objects, they do obviously exist, but since they are both by definition and by nature unidentified, noone can say wether they are extra terrestrial or not, but if anyone wishes to spend their life hunting such seemingly elusive objects it is entirely up to them. Others spend their lives in the military killing and murdering innocent civillians calling it by euphemisms such as "collateral damage" and considering it acceptable and taking and accepting any and all orders to do so, I know which choice of action while living this life I think is the more insane "nutcase" one. Go figure. User:Nunamiut - Nunamiut (talk) 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted diatribe

Placing the content of these edits here, just because it seems interesting:

WHY ARE all these lies written about me??Wikipedia is the biggest source of total disinformation about me!It is clear to me that certain intelligence agencies are involved in my character asassination for over a decade. SHAME on you! With 3 medical specialities; former member of NY Academy of sciences("for !your acievements"), former govt of Finland´s representative in WHO, Former chief medical officer of Lapland, Finland, Former acting Director of Environmental health and Health Education of Finland at National Board of Health, when I shortly replaced also Chief medical officer of Finland at the peak of my medical carreer in Finland. Also have been chief medical adviser for the International Red Cross in Malaysia and Indonesia in the Vietnamese refugee program, have been President of Nursing College of Lapland, former president of Junior Chamber of Commerce, Rovaniemi, First female Commodore in the world in Lapland´s Sailing Club, First doctor in the world to have published in Finnish medical journal DUODECIM about out of body and near death experiences 1983,and about mind control 1999 in Specula, Oulu University medical students and doctors Association OLK. Also I am a well known public figure and lecturer in Scandinavia, international best selling author (sold 250000 books) in parapswychology, ufology and mind control, etc. Please delete Wikipeda LIES! Rauni-Leena Luukanen Kilde /Norway/Finland

This got deleted by 88.195.217.201 on Oct.1, 2009, which seems justified to me as per (at the very least) WP:MOS.
Feel free, though, to debate it -- and to put valid, relevant, properly sourced material in the article as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines!
(ps. I am not, myself, acting here in the service of: extraterrestrials, shadowy government agencies, my own self-interest, or the forces of censorship! )
Cheers! --Wikiscient 20:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

crap crap crap

is the information she's giving absolutely false ? i mean, this should be easy to contrast, though i don't have the means. the article seems to try to destroy her, and if it's not completely accurate we are giving more reasons to make people think about a conspiracy against her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.1.211 (talk) 12:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Better sources needed, here is one

The article is based on personal sites, blogs and similar unreliable information. Finnish wikipedians might help in finding more reliable sources. In the meanwhile, an English reference that seems to be a a proper source for rewriting the article is Christopher Hugh Partridge's book UFO religions, (page 208, Google Books), Routledge, 2003, ISBN 0415263239. --Dipa1965 (talk) 08:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the UFO and conspiracy blogs are definitely not WP:RS, and I have trimmed the article appropriately. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

My answer to this removed elsewhere91.155.234.89 (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me and introducing unreliable material

@91.155.234.89: Comments like the one above and this one that you posted on my page are plain harassement. If you continue, I will appeal to the Arbitration Comittee. Please refrain from insultive behaviour. Thank you.

As for your edits, they consist of:

1. Removal of correctly referenced material
2. Unsubstantiated material (claimed sources are unreliable videos from Youtube or a certain Bevolution.dk)

Please read the Wikipedia's policy about reliable sources. See also LuckyLouie's comment above. --Dipa1965 (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dipa1965, stop vandalising Wikipedia

You do not delete any referenced, verified and authorized information on Kilde only because you don't agree with her opinions or you don't like her for some other reason. That's should be obvious to every human being, even in Wikipedia.91.155.234.89 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course you don't understand a word of what you are talking about and it is more than obvious that you never read WP:RS. However I will not engage in edit wars with a troll from an anonymous ip. I just hope that everybody else is able to see that the article, in its current form, is a shameful mass of undocumented or wrongly documented material which clearly aims in promoting its subject.--Dipa1965 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of conspiracies and "knowledge that is being suppressed by Western governments" should not be sourced to YouTube videos and self-published materials. I reverted the article back to the last version that meets our WP:RS policy. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Guys, just stop your game here. It seems you don't have any idea about Wikipedia's rules: "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links."

Youtube videos can be used as a reference as long as they don't violate copyright laws and they don't. Kilde's biography comes from "Who is Who in Medicine and Healthcare" (reference given), and "Bevolution.dk" so what exactly is your problem here? Here for example you'll find the same information about her in Finnish (It's a Finnish medical publication): http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/raunileena+luukanenkilden+salattu+maailma/a126156

So what is it (besides clearly Kilde herself), that bothers you so that you continuously want to delete her medical credentials? If any of the references don't serve their purpose, you must give CORRECT & LOGICAL REASONING as to why you think they aren't valid. See, this is not about your personal problems and opinions about her, but about Wikipedia's actual rules. I ask you kindly to respect the rules and stop behaving like you are the one who makes the rules in Wikipedia.91.155.234.89 (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia puts the burden of proof on anyone wishing to include anything in an article. I've removed a lot of puffery, and revised the article so it doesn't present Luukanen-Kilde's theories as fact. If anyone wishes to dispute these edits, I expect them (a) to understand Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing etc, and (b) to provide valid arguments as to why particular items deserve mention in the article - again according to Wikipedia policy. This article was a mess, and if it is to remain at all, the subject needs proper impartial discussion, not vacuous spin and irrelevant padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree. The degree of attention we give an encyclopedic subject is roughly equal to the degree of attention the subject has been given in reliable mainstream sources. UFO conspiracy blogs and Youtube videos are not reliable sources. It makes me wonder if Rauni-Leena_Luukanen-Kilde meets WP:NOTE. LuckyLouie (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, you actually wonder whether a person who is recognized in Marquis Who's Who meets WP:NOTE?? Give me a break. Why do you guys have such a compulsory need to discredit anything and everything Dr. Kilde says? Kindly explain me why do you even want to discredit who she is?91.155.234.89 (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have removed the subject's medical activities (you call them puffery) and replaced them with a skeptic's speculation on whether the subject became intrested in UFOs before or after a car accident... Seriously, Kilde is conversant in the things she talks about and her world-view covers many subjects, but it is her philosophy, the synthesis she makes that shines through. The word philosophy that I introduced in the article includes the idea that we're not talking about mathematics where 1+1=2, no matter how well the pieces of the puzzle fit together. Wikipedia policy regarding sourcing has already been discussed. Youtube references are allowed as long as a video does not violate copyright laws. Any career activities are essential to any biography. This is self-evident in the world of biographies.91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[[Please don't remove material critical to Kilde (e.g. Robert T. Carroll, Skeptic's Dictionary) and replace it with puffery sourced to YouTube. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I kindly ask you not to remove important information about Kilde's medical career. Listing achievements from a person's professional career is not and cannot be considered "puffery". I already explained this in my previous reply. Also, Carroll's blog is not a competent source because he makes too many factual mistakes. He for example suggests that Luukanen's interest in parapsychology began only after the accident and this of course is **not correct** either because Luukanen published her first book already as early as 1982. No references or sources to Carroll's claims are given, so his is a totally unreliable blog. As to Kilde's medical qualifications and activities, you'll find the correct information in e.g. Marquis' Who is Who in Medicine and Health Care. 91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No. it is up to you to explain why all this is necessary. This is Wikipedia policy. As for my 'motives and intentions', you clearly know nothing whatever about them, though yours are clear enough. Wikipedia isn't a forum for pushing fringe theories, regardless of the qualifications of the person propounding them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Career activities are not puffery but facts. There's no need to justify their inclusion in her or any other person's biography. And please, do not speak about "Wikipedia policy", because you don't follow any policy in editing out information concerning her. It is you who must give some explanation regarding your desire to remove Kilde's medical activities from her bio. See, you don't do something like that only because she speaks about things you don't want to hear or disagree with etc. We shall recognize and respect everybody's right to say what she or he has to say.91.155.234.89 (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

She may have 'a right to say' what she says. Wikipedia has no obligation to let her say it here. As for Wikipedia policy, I suggest you read WP:3RR as you are liable to be blocked for editing entirely if you continue. You should also look at WP:FRINGE, not to mention WP:NPA. If you think you can force your point of view through by edit-warring, you are mistaken. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like Wikipedia wants her to say what she says, because there's an article about her here. And don't try to bluff with false accusations. It is you who don't follow any rules at all here. I have already contacted Wikipedia.org in the US.91.155.234.89 (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia wants articles that conform to standards and policy, not uncritical bloated promotions of fringe conspiracy theories. As for contacting Wikipedia.org, I expect they will tell you the same thing. By the way, do you have any connection with the article subject? If so, you need to read WP:COI too. As for me supposedly breaking rules, there are appropriate avenues to deal with that too, though read WP:BOOMERANG first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not want a person's career information deleted on the grounds that a user don't like the subject. This should not be too difficult to understand. Why do you think a person (me in this case) who wants to set the record straight has some connection with Kilde? I don't have her contact info even and I'm here to correct the mistakes in the article. You haven't given an explanation yet as to why you have such a strong desire to delete the subject's medical credentials from the article. As to adding critical material, how about finding some trustworthy material, where facts are correct and adding that into the existing article? Just don't delete information about Kilde's professional career.91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kilde's medical credentials (btw, are "civil military courses for six months" a medical credential?) are not related to the reason she is notable. Anyway, I am still expecting a reliable source for these "credentials".--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an independent and unbiased source for Dr. Kilde's medical credentials in English: http://bios.marquiswhoswho.com/rauni_leena_tellervo_luukanen_kilde/public_health_and_tropical_medicine_physician/7303960. Who is Who in Medicine and Health Care, p. 528, ISBN 0837900026, ISBN 9780837900025.91.155.234.89 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

'91.155.234.89' is currently blocked for edit-warring, and the article has been semi-protected. If the anon IP wants to make changes, he/she will have to get agreement on the talk page first - which seems unlikely. I'd suggest that we just leave the article in its present state, rather than trying to engage in debate with an obviously-uncooperative editor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"If the anon IP wants to make changes"... Are you the one to decide who makes changes? Are you an administrator?91.155.234.89 (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an administrator. The point being made is that if you edit-war again you'll be blocked. Marquis Who's Who is not a reliable source, the information is provided by the subjects themselves:[1] "Can I submit my CV instead of filling out the data form? While we prefer individuals to use the data form, you can attach a CV to the data form and send it back to us. Please note that this will delay the reviewing and final selection process." It's pretty useless for any purpose really except promotion. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediuutiset - A Finnish Medical Publication describes Kilde's medical activities and the given info is consistent with what Marquis Who's Who writes.Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde.[2] quote: "If specific bio material is only available in "Who's Who", it should not be used in a Wikipedia article". "For some time now, Marquis has been the most important biographical compilation publisher, with people included based strictly on "reference value"... practically every public library in America has a shelf full of Marquis volumes." ==> Am I right to assume, according to your statement, that for example Henry Kissinger's and President Obama's biographies in "Marquis Who's Who" may have been falsified by, say, their PR teams? As it is, I expect you to point out the entries on Dr. Kilde in Marquis Who's Who which you believe are not correct. I also expect you to prove that Carroll's blog and Partridge's book (=the sources used in the current article) have the facts right and are reliable. To verify this, I'm expecting you to present at least two biographical lexicons where the information given on Dr. Kilde is consistent with the info given by Carroll and Partridge. I'm waiting for your reply...91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Even with reliable source, the amount of detail in your proposed version is excessive - it is of little significance (from Wikipedia's perspective), in that Kilde's notability is as a promoter of a fringe theory. Perhaps her medical career might merit a little more coverage than the present version, but no more than another short sentence or two - as I have pointed out many times, a Wikipedia article is not supposed to be a resumé, and extensive of her career tells readers nothing about her theories. If you want more on her career added, I suggest you make a constructive proposal, in the format required - as prose, not a list. Adding this will of course also require that issues of sourcing are settled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't use Marquis for anyone. That it may be correct most of the time doesn't make it correct all of the time. And the article should not be a resume. The IP misunderstands what we mean by reliable source, and we do not have to prove that reliable sources are correct. In fact, for some subjects reliable sources will often conflict with each other (eg history, literary critiques, etc). IP, you can appeal this at WP:RSN if you want to argue Marquis is a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I gave you a link to a Finnish medical publication to support the information given in Marquis Who's Who. What is that you suspect is not correct in Marquis Who's Who? You have to point your finger at the entry that you suspect and then we'll try to verify that from another source. The present sources Partridge and Carroll cannot be considered reliable because they don't have their facts right which I already proved earlier.91.155.234.89 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Marquis simply doesn't come into the equation as it is not a reliable source. Maybe something from the Finnish publication can be used but Partridge seems to cover most of that. Go to RSN and complain if you don't like the sources. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dipa1965, do not edit my comments

You cannot edit someone else's comments.91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments:

It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.

Substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:

* Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.

* Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.

* Deletion (which in most browsers is rendered as struck-through text, is coded like this and ends up like this.

* An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded like that and ends up like that.

* A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"

* Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission.

* When modifying a comment, you can add a parenthetical note pointing out the change. You can also add an additional timestamp by typing ~~~~~ (five tildes).

Making substantial edits to your own past postings is confusing and unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's simple: I have a right to abbreviate my comments, but Dipa1965 has no right to touch my comments here. And please try to be brief and don't quote whole paragraphs in your replies, thank you.91.155.234.89 (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you don't have a 'right' to do anything. If you comply with the expected Wikipedia standards (including the one I quote above), you have the same privileges as other Wikipedia editors. If you don't, Wikipedia has the right to restrict your access to the project, or withdraw it entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

No. The quoted text does not say anything about abbreviating one's own reply as long as the content remains the same. You again misinterpret and misuse Wikipedia rules only to serve your purpose. This happened here earlier and it happened on my discussion page as well. Bis: One can abbreviate one's own reply and I'm asking you to abbreviate your quote which is not even relevant here because it does not say anything about "abbreviating". And one more time, stop threatening other wikipedia users.91.155.234.89 (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't "abbreviate". You intentionally distorted what you wrote before, in order to polish your uncivilized behaviour: one of the "abbreviating" actions was the removal of this comment where you wonder whether I am a schizophrenic and you ask to see an official medical certificate for my mental health.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I abbreviated a lot of things and decided to clean up my language too. (I will do that in the future too, to my own comments). YOU, on the contrary, don't have the right to touch my comments. Because people in Finland are following this theatrical act staged by you, AndyTheGrump and UnluckyLouisa, I'm trying to keep my comments readable. And since you brought up the subject, I still would like to see a certificate verifying your mental health. Do you have one? Yet your mental health of course is your business. The criminal character assassination that you practise here however is NOT only your business. I hope you understand this much by now.91.155.234.89 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

March 19; Suggestions for improving the present article

Neither the UFO, nor the skeptic blogs or books should be used as a source in this article. I suggest a description of Dr. Kilde's medical career activities is given with clues and links to the things she talks and writes about without any interpretations whatsoever. I also suggest that phrases that read "Kilde claims this and that" will be corrected because some of the "claims" currently attributed to her are not exclusively hers. Also if the word "claim" is used and a document is provided that gives her enough reason to express her concern, then it may not be a mere claim anymore. It's much more neutral to give a link to an interview than to try to describe what a person "claims". Also, the sources used for the present article must be verified. At present, without external sources there's no way of knowing if the given claims are invented by Partridge and Carroll. An independent and unbiased source is needed to support their claims.91.155.234.89 (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You still miss the point. We need third party reliable sources for her article. It can't rely on her writings. Details of her career are by and large irrelevant. Without those third party sources we can't even show that she is notable enough for an article and it would probably mean deletion of the article. Partridge and Carroll are what we consider to be reliable sources. You can appeal this at WP:RSN but you need third party sources meeting our critiera at WP:RS to show that she is notable enough for an article. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I already gave you this THIRD PARTY link: http://www.mediuutiset.fi/uutisarkisto/raunileena+luukanenkilden+salattu+maailma/a126156. Mediuutiset - A Finnish Medical Publication, which describes Kilde's medical activities and the given info is consistent with the Marquis info. You claim that Partridge and Carroll are reliable even if I already pointed my finger at the several obvious mistakes in their writing. Okay, I'm throwing the ball back to you: I ask you to provide third party links meeting criteria at WP:RS to prove that "Pekka Puupää" is notable enough to be included in the English Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekka_Puup%C3%A4%C3%A4. If you cannot provide such third party links, we must consider removing that article too, right? There are hundreds of articles with a similar - according to you - questionable status...91.155.234.89 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free, I'm sure we have a lot of articles that should be deleted for lack of notability. You'll have to get an account to nominate them though. Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Other unbiased sources besides the Mediuutiset article have been given, so the problem never was lack of reliable sources. The problem is the attitude towards the subject here. The editors want to present Dr. Kilde in a silly light so that information on for example Henry Kissinger's depopulation plans would not be taken seriously. In other words Dr. Kilde is used to disinform people on plans by Kissinger and his ilk. Self-published material is widely used in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_M._Greer), yet the information given by Dr. Kilde, that is CONSISTENT WITH UNBIASED SOURCES, isn't accepted into her article. In Wikipedia the rules and the editing policy change from one article to the next entirely according to the editors' likes and dislikes or in this case, "coreographic needs". All the reasoning and references to so-called policies here are nothing but a big theatrical act.91.155.234.89 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Kilde's correct title: Chief Medical Administrator/Physician/Officer, Regional State Administration of Lapland.

According to the latest Finnish legislation http://yle.fi/alueet/teksti/lappi/2010/10/laaninlaakarit_aluehallintoylilaakareiksi_2030140.html, Dr. Kilde's medical title translates into English as follows:

Either "Chief Medical Administrator, Regional State Administration of Lapland". (Regional Chief Medical Administrator)

Or "Chief Administrative Medical Officer, Regional State Administration of Lapland". (Regional Chief Administrative Medical Officer)

Or "Chief Administrative Physician, Regional State Administration of Lapland". (Regional Chief Administrative Physician)

The current titel addressed to Dr. Kilde is not correct and I expect it to be corrected by tomorrow. If no correction is done by the vandals here, I will correct the mistakes myself as soon as I am allowed to do so. Never mind if I will again be accused of edit-warring on false grounds.91.155.234.89 (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

She isn't given a title in the article. She was a provincial medical officer, that isn't a title. I don't see how we can give her a title unless we have a reliable source for the title she held at the time. You can be blocked for personal attack, you know. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said Dr. Kilde is given a wrong title in the article. The second phrase should read; "...and began a career as Chief Medical Administrator, Regional State Administration of Lapland in March 1975." I just provided a link to explain why the current version is wrong. What is your problem Dougweller? Why do you threaten me?91.155.234.89 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't threaten you, I just inform you that actions have consequence and people do get blocked for personal attacks. I repeat, 'provincial medical officer' is not a title, it is a general role and seems to be correct. If you have a reliable source for her title in 1975 it can be considered, but there is no way we would give someone a title that didn't exist then. Dougweller (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Dougweller, presenting Wikipedia rules in a false and misleading context to serve the deliberate character assassination practised here is far more serious than what you accuse me of. Dr. Kilde's professional title has always been given correctly: She was Chief Medical Officer of Lapland AND Acting Chief Medical Officer of Finland in 1978 and today she is Chief Medical (Administrative) Officer of Lapland retired. I don't have any idea who CREATED the title "Provincial Medical Officer" but I have never seen it used in Finland. I already explained that she was the top administrative physician of Northern Finland and her job was to supervise and to develope the publich health care system there. There are NO provinces in Finland, there are only regions and counties.91.155.234.89 (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

References to Kissinger's depopulation plans

Since it looks like the character assassination here will continue, below is material to support the depopulation statements clearly wrongly referred to as "claims" and wrongly attributed to Dr. Kilde as if they were something she made up herself. (More information about Kissinger's and others' mindless statements can easily be found.)

1. http://www.rense.com/general59/kissingereugenics.htm

2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/30342204/Depopulation-Quotes

3. http://www.scribd.com/doc/34181013/Social-Contract-National-Security-Study-Memorandum-200-by-Stephen-Mumford

4. http://avidpdf.com/viewer?url=http://www.thesouthernpartisan.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/A95.1-ARCHIVEGenocideThePoor-7p.pdf

5. http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=2574

6. http://nixon.archives.gov/virtuallibrary/documents/nssm/nssm_200.pdf

7. http://www.buergerwelle.de/pdf/kissingers_population_control_agenda_in_action.html91.155.234.89 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the links you provide are even remotely likely to be seen as reliable sources for the claims you are making. If you wish to suggest otherwise, take it to WP:RSN. You are wasting your time posting them here.

The next time you refer to an editor as practising 'character assassination' I am going to make an official complaint. We have been unusually tolerant of your breaches of WP:NPA, but I see no reason to continue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Threatening again? You claim that not even the document from the Nixon archives with Kissinger's own signature is a "reliable source", huh?? Hehe, here's yet another proof that there is no logic whatsoever as to what you call a reliable source. You don't follow any policy or any rules except those that serve your coreographic needs in this staged theatrical act. Everything you have written here so far, has had one single goal: Deliberate character assassination. Do you seriously think you can continue your criminal deeds here without anybody stopping you? In case I'd be blocked again, do you think others who follow this act will just calmly accept what you're doing here?91.155.234.89 (talk) 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Note. I have now reported '91.155.234.89' at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_91.155.234.89_making_allegations_of_.27criminal_deeds.27. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As I told the IP, it wasn't a threat, it was a statement that actions have consequences. The consequence in this case was a one week block, with further blocks suggested if the behavior continues. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And now a month due to the IP's response to the block. Dougweller (talk) 06:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

block evasion 91.155.234.89
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.