User talk:Petri Krohn/Archive 2007

Archives

2005 - 2006

I've noticed you've been changing the Dassault Mirage 5 links from Dassault Mirage III to Dassault Mirage 5. I'm sure you realize the Dassault Mirage 5 page is a redirect to Dassault Mirage III. As such, I assume you are preparing an article on the 5 for posting soon. However, it's usually best to wait until after one has posted the article to change the redirects, as someone else may change them back if they don't know your plans. - BillCJ 04:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasons, and would support splitting off the 5. Just be careful of double redirects. - BillCJ 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added {split section} tags to the Dassault Mirage III article. You can comment on the Talk Page there. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Kven-user is actually not hardbanned. He may still edit as long as he doesn't edit articles related to Kvens, edits in an aggressive way, or uses sockpuppets. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Kven#Remedies. Regards Fred-Chess 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Petri! May I ask you to please not create redirects such as this one? I understand the reasoning and intentions behind it, but it just so happens that I am in the middle of sorting links/backlinks/redirects to all Russian districts, and having a redirect like this confuses and impedes the workflow. If you absolutely need a blue link in place of a district link, let me know, I'll make a minimal stub instead. Thank you for understanding, and please let me know if you have questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an FYI, I have made a stub at Priozersky District (note capitalization). Please let me know if you have further concerns. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the deletions related to Red Diaper Baby. I deleted them in order to prevent lawsuits against Wikipedia Foundation. Thanks. 69.19.14.35 17:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted[reply]

If you genuinely have the interests of Wikipedia in mind, please register an account. (...or at least edit from a fixed IP, so that you can be contacted and your edits can be traced.)

Anonymous deletions of content, without propper explanation on the talk page, are always considered VANDALISM. -- Petri Krohn 17:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the discussion to Talk:Red diaper baby#Vandalism or "protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits"?. --Petri Krohn 17:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Leet (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:AntiVandalBot#Use of the word "f***" on Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 18:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why restore the link to Vyacheslav Sokolenko's page when there is no page to him? BernardZ 03:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you doing on my page and who the do you think you are. You removed the fact that the finns were in the waffen ss. If you mess with my page i will mess with your page Rollaround 08:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong; he was not a sock puppet of the Kven user but of User:SuperDeng. -- Petri Krohn 13:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sadly, I had to revert your edit to Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945‎. A neutrality dispute can only be based on neutral, valid sources, opposing some ideas expressed in an article. And not on someone's 'original research', as it is called here. If you had seen the talk page concerned, you probably would have noticed, that there has been no real content dispute, but mere Soviet POV pushing by 2 or 3 Russian guys. I had the right to remove those tags again, since consensus has rendered the title perfectly valid, and secondly, no-one has explained, what might be 'noncompliant' in the article. If you want to dispute anything, please give some valid information on the talk page. Thank you. Constanz - Talk 09:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Constanz (talk • contribs) 14:51, 15 January 2007

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. Constanz - Talk 13:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to make two pictures, one of the situation 1917, and another what it is today. --Whiskey 08:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to discuss the links to LoHo in various articles. Whether the LoHo article should be deleted or not, they do not belong in articles for the following reasons:

• "LoHo" is not a neighborhood name. It's an alternate term proposed by a realty firm and not widely used by anyone outside its namesake firm.
• Even if "LoHo" was a neighborhood name, there is no such thing as "LoHo section of the Lower East Side". LoHo was coined as an alternate term for LES, not to describe a microhood contained within LES.

In fact, the person who coined the term says as much: "It's soft marketing," Mr. Goldman said the other day. "It's branding for my name. But I'm not looking to rename the Lower East Side; I want it to be an 'also known as.' " (from NY Times)

Considering the above quote, there's no reason why the term should be used to describe a location and it should be removed from articles independent of its article status because it's simply wrong. Please don't revert my changes again unless you can show that:

• LoHo is a section within LES, or otherwise a term that's not redundant with LES,
• LoHo is a commonly used term by reputable sources and/or the general public to describe the area.

Considering Goldman concedes that he's still trying to popularize the name and that it is synonymous with the Lower East Side, I don't think you'll show either of the above to be true. Thanks. 24.215.233.72 12:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not think LoHo differs from the Lower East Side, please take the article to WP:AFD, so the two articles can be merged. Please no not remove references to the article as long as it stays.

An anonymous user had been replacing links to Lower East Side with hidden links to LOHO. That was wrong and you were right to revert him. -- Petri Krohn 12:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the artist formerly known as 24.215.233.72. While I disagreed with you on Afd as a remedy for the LoHo links, I've started one (and created an account in the process): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo. I would appreciate any comment you care to make. Thank you. Mosmof 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I think - the person who coined the term is quoted in a reputable source saying they are one and the same, and that it's a branding term, not an actual neighborhood name.

Whether the LoHo article stays or not, it is incorrect given the definition given by Goldman himself. If the LoHo article is deleted, the term will still stay in the article, right? That tells me the links in articles should be handled independently from a potential Afd.

Anyway, I've reverted your reverts before I read your response, but I'll hold off on making RVs for now. 24.215.233.72 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any debate on whether LoHo should be referred to as such, or whether it is in fact referred to as such, should be held with actual stakeholders and not anonymous people with some kind of vendetta. Thank you for stopping the deletion. Juda S. Engelmayer 02:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice work. I'm the one who created the original stub - I think.

I discovered him through Victor E. Marsden, who wrote about him.

Do you have any references/books/ in Finish about them?

Marsden died on October 28, 1920. But he's only popularly known for the Protocols of Zion.

What can you tell me about Ivan's name "John"?

Is Obolensky a hero in Finish history? Or was he a complete Russian Tsarist?

How about Marsden - is he at all know in Finnish history? Was he opposed to Finnish independence?

Anything you know on these issues, I'd like to know.

Yours truly, --Ludvikus 00:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know absolutely nothing. Nor do I have any references. I just connected every piece of information available on the Internet and in Wikipedia. His name was already included in the template {{Governors of Grand Duchy of Finland}}. The only real source was the article fi:Ivan Obolenski on the Finnish Wikipedia - which is even shorter than this. It does not list references either.

You can also thank Ghirla for bringing this to my attention. He was not sure if "Prince John Obolensky" ever even existed. -- Petri Krohn 01:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you were trying to do to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LoHo, I wish you hadn't done it. Wikipedia is not a democracy and Afd is not a vote. Please restore the formatting to the way it was. Thanks. Mosmof 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. If you think any of my comments belong in the discussion page, please feel free to move them. Mosmof 11:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I appreciate you taking the time to explain all this. For what it's worth, my comments weren't meant to force my opinions, but just to address points made by other editors. Mosmof 11:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if moving the exchange between me and Judae1 would clean up the Afd and is appropriate, I have no problem with it. Mosmof 11:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated the article Carl O. Nordling for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl O. Nordling. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Carl O. Nordling during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 15:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from Talk:Continuation War -- Petri Krohn 17:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The article Continuation War was protected after an edit war on the inclusion of long section of OR by "Andropov Andrej", one of many usernames used by a multiuser contributing from IP address 213.216.199.6 [1] The article was protected, and a long discussion continued on this talk page between some regular contributors and an army of sockpuppets. (Archived here) The sock army failed to gain any support for its possition. After the issue of sock puppetry was raised, the sock master responded by voicing accusations of sock puppetry against established users here and on talk pages of some administrators. After two weeks some administrator lost his patience and took the issue to requests for checkuser, it was confermed that the user accounts were sock puppets of the banned user Art Dominique, also known as the "Kven user".

The Kven user has a good command of the English language. His arguments and accusations can be convincing to the casual reader. The content of his comments is however 100% <personal attack deleted>. See:

• User talk:Husond#Regarding the sock puppeteer Illythr (Roobit, Whiskey, 68.39.144.136, Jatrius, etc.)

The Kven user has accused several established users of sock puppetry, (first stated here). The accusation states, that Illythr, Whiskey, Roobit and Petri Krohn are the same person. The accusation is totally absurd. The users accused of being the same person have expressed very different points-of-view on contested issues. They also have long edit histories. The only reason for the accusation can be to spread FUD and lies.

• Illythr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a native Russian from Moldovia. He is a regular contributor to Transnistria. His first edit is from 28 January 2006. He also contributes to the Russian Wikipedia.
• Whiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) from Kauhava, Finland is a physics major from the University of Helsinki. His first edit is from 9 January 2004 One of his first contributions was starting the article Occupation of Baltic Republics (a title with an anti-Russian POV). His contributions to commons also include his real name in the copyright information.
• Roobit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Is a native Russian from Estonia. He has expressed some extremely anti-Estonian points-of view. He may be one of the 1 million citizens of Estonia and Latvia, that were deprived of their citizenship by denaturalization laws in 1992. His first edit is from 25 November 2006. His contributions to commons also include his real name in the copyright information.
• Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - is me, using my real name. As far as I know, I am the only person in the world with this combination of a Finnish first name and a Low Saxon last name. My user page contains links to personal information, including my home address, telephone numbers and my entry on IMDB. I have almost 15000 edits on the English Wikipedia, my first edit is from 14 August 2005.

-- Petri Krohn 05:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri, I was reading the article on Peak Oil - which is excellent and followed the link to global warming and was very surprised that that article did not refer to peak oil even in passing.

I've added a section with some basic facts effectively inviting readers of global warming to visit peak oil to find out more. I don't know why some of the global warming evangelists are being so upetty about it, but they are giving me hassle. I noticed you were a contributor to the peak oil article, and I am leaving this to ask for some support88.110.38.52 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually surprised that they had not been there before. I also expanded Hugo Gellert's page to reflect how much a part of it he was as well. Thanks for the comment.Juda S. Engelmayer 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that it was moved because Kazan made it notable. I linked your page because it was quite helpful. I plan on adding to UHF and also adding an Amalgamated Housing page. It just takes time for me to gather the info, line up the references and write it. Juda S. Engelmayer 01:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC) Thank youJuda S. Engelmayer 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amalgamated Housing Cooperative it's a start. I'll fill in more tomorrow and this week.Juda S. Engelmayer 03:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petri Krohn! We've had a disagreement about how best to format the "Continental divide" article. I read through the Manual of Style (thanks for the link!), and didn't find anything to suggest that large images are prohibited. In fact, it seems that they are sometimes encouraged. The MoS states that thumbnails should not be used when "the image subject or image properties ... call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article," such as "when using detailed maps, diagrams or charts." The new map seems to fit this description to a T. And in the past, other wikipedians have tended to make my graphics larger when I first put them into thumbnail boxes, so I'm confused why you've taken the opposite approach. Part of my concern with the "Continental divide" article is that placing the new map in the lower-right, very small, gives preference to the U.S.-National-Atlas image, but this older map leaves out information about endorheic basins and does not give a world-wide view (an important part of the article is the distinction between continental divides in general and "The Continental Divide" which runs north-south through North America). Also, replacing government-produced images with wikipedia-specific images is usually encouraged for its own sake. Finally, you did not clean up the original caption to my map (it's still orphaned at the top of the "Examples" section), which suggested to me that your edit was made a bit hastily. I'd love your thoughts about the page, and how it's better with a small image. (Right now the article seems pretty thin to me; the "Examples" section is in particular need of more clarity and cartographic specificity.) Citynoise 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri. I used your great page on SS Rajputana to create one for SS Ranchi. I'm not a maritime/naval expert - it carried my grandparents back from the Far East after they were liberated from a Japanese camp in 1945, so I might have phrased things oddly. I hope you don't mind but I copied a chunk of your text on armed cruisers. I also tried to copy the info box and fill it in with Ranchi's info, but it's gone a bit haywire. I can't see why it's not behaving properly (it was for a while, until my last edit or so). If you have the time, I'd be really grateful if you could you drop by the Ranchi page and have a look, and maybe fix my mess? Many thanks. Jasper33 08:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are a star! Thanks so much for that Jasper33 16:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now quite some problem with that new user in Finnish Civil War. He keeps reverting ALL changes to get his version back. It is not an improvement that he does not even post to the talk page anymore. Since you seemingly are used to deal with this kind of stuff, can we don something to prevent this happening? He has done it already five times and of course will continue. Recent revert [2] he removes your edit, removes reference from the bottom, removes "volunteer" from the Swedish officers part, adds "rise of socialism" to the cause of the war, and something related to Germans and "Finland's democracy during FCW". He also removes the part that some Whites were simply activists, instead of academics, major land-owners or industrialists. Not hard to guess which political party's member card he has in his pocket? I strongly would oppose any protection as this is caused by a single person who biases it, . It would make the article "unstable" just because of him and therefore grant any vandal a victory. It would be nice if we could even get the texts to the talk page and discuss the versions. Also welcome to join: Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland. --Pudeo (Talk) 10:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:30 (UTC)

I actually just found something explaining that using xyz (disambiguation) rather than just xyz means it's intended to be left as-is, but didn't realize that when I was going through the Gothic links. Sorry for the hassle there. -Bbik 08:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there were more, if I remember correctly that was the only one that I (thought I) had any clue about. I'll go through and check later, need to stop looking at the screen right now or I'll have a migraine soon. -Bbik 08:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as follow-up, I double checked and Serif was in fact the only one. -Bbik 06:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri, I have noticed you are interested in topics concerning the Russian telecommunications mafia business. I have also heard that there are some recent news about Leonid Reiman's affairs. Wouldn't you be interested in updating the article about him? Colchicum 02:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on the United States Naval reactor article and protecting it (and its relatives) from the Canoe U puppies. Your actions are in keeping with the highest ██████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████████ ███████████ barnstar. ➥the Epopt 01:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category was much needed. It was a good idea to create it and categorise there many of the relevant articles. --Michkalas 13:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You moved Aino (mythology) above Aino (given name) on the Aino (disambiguation) page and left an edit comment reflecting the change, but I'm confused as to why you made it. In the process of cleaning up the dab page I alphabetized the links. If there was any particular reason for the change, I'd be interested to hear it. It's not a matter of grave concern to me, so I won't change it back either way. Regards. Dekimasuよ! 05:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri

I'm not sure why you took Finnish People out of the category Ethnic Groups in Europe. Do you think that Finnish people are not an ethnic group ? Do you think they are not in Europe? Category does not mean the same as related article!

And its a trueism to say that the Finnish people are an Ethnic group in Finland! And although there are som Finnish people in Sweden, it does not constitute a categorisation. SO I undid your change to that article. The Swedish edit might be arguable. If you add that one back in I won't complain! However, I do think you are mistakingly thinking of "categorisation" as meaning "related articles", and that is not what it means. --Tom 19:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Finnish people#Categorisation of Finnish people -- Petri Krohn 21:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did misunderstand, that's why I deleted that section of my message. I should have thought before I responded and read your earlier message than just one line of it. I apologize in any case. :) All the best, Aivazovsky 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just to let you know that a place has been created for any Finnish --> English translation requests you would like to make at (Wikipedia:Translation/*/Lang/fi) so that it is easier for people to add, find and take care of them. Thank you for your wide range of contributions (and the Iittala article)! -Yupik 20:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, check out my comment on the talk page, regarding the delimitations of CPSU-related articles. --Soman 11:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you, please, explain your addition of {{POV-title}} tag to Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. The article is in a kind of edit waring now, and some edits (if not most) are clearly non-neutral and outside the scope of the article. Sometimes, indeed, there are discussions about issues not at all concerned with the facts of the title. But since you did not explain, I would like to ask which of these or maybe other reasons you meant. :Dc76 18:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, I have started an RfC on the name of the article. You may want to add your two cents as to why you think the move/rename was wrong. FYI, I moved the article to Renaissance Providence Hotel because that is what the building is currently called, not to "censor" the article. To be honest, I don't see where there was any censorship involved... I left in the fact that the building was originally designed to be a Masonic hall (but never occupied by the Masons as they ran out of money before it was completed). What was censored? Blueboar 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories for redirect pages; thank you. --NE2 07:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add {{R with possibilities}}. -- Petri Krohn 08:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out this part: "Relevant categories should be moved to the main page where the redirect is pointing." --NE2 08:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...unless they are marked with {{R with possibilities}}. -- Petri Krohn 08:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that part... it was added fairly recently, so I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Categorizing redirects. --NE2 08:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your addition to the article Greater Wrath. Being a native finnish speaker, perhaps you can fill in the finnish equivalent of "Stora ofreden" if there is one. jkl 15:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (fi:Isoviha) -- Petri Krohn 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yksikköä ei koskaan syytetty rikoksista missään oikeudessa eikä jäseniä tuomittu kyseisistä syistä. En tämän takia näe mitään syytä miksi lisäykselleni pitäisi lisätä lähde. En ole koskaan nähnyt että kukaan olisi avoimesti syyttänyt yksikkä sotarikoksista. --Kurt Leyman 07:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiken Wikipedia-aineiston pitää perustua lähteisiin. "Olen kuullut" tai "en ole koskaan nähnyt" ei riitä lähteeksi. -- In English: WP:RS. -- Petri Krohn 14:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri! There is a new articles search bot you might be interested in: User:AlexNewArtBot/FinlandSearchResult. Colchicum 15:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Didn't notice the possibilities tag, thought it was just someone trying to get a redirect for an unlikely search term through. Sorry about that. Heliomance 14:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethnic POV pushing / vandalism?" Those are rather strong words, don't you think? Please try to understand the situation between Armenian and Azerbaijani editors here on Wikipedia. I didn't mean to somehow insult you, if this was the case. Please accept my sincerest apology. -- Aivazovsky 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't realize that you hated me so much..."read the fucking document"? That's a bit strong. I cannot revert this article for another 24 hours per a 1RR parole regarding an Armenian-Azerbaijani RfA, but you seem to almost be provoking me to respond. -- Aivazovsky 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at Talk:Treaty of Kars#Parties to the treaty. -- Petri Krohn 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll work this out with you on the talk page. Peter, just know that I don't want get into a dispute with you over this and know that I don't mean any harm. If you knew my edit history, you would see this to be true. We must work something out. After all, we're both descendants of Finno-Ugric peoples (I'm part Hungarian). :) Kindest regards, Aivazovsky 21:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research on it and all the books that I've found list Russia and each Transcaucasian republic as seperate parties to the treaty (even though they formed part of the Soviet Union by December 1922). I apologize for sticking to a nonfact (I was not "blatantly lying" as you asserted in your discussion with Adil Baguirov). Also, Khoikhoi is not Armenian as you have implied. -- Aivazovsky 01:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also want an apology from you for your rudeness towards me during this dispute. (e.g. "read the fucking document") -- Aivazovsky 01:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aivazovsky was acting in bad faith from the beginning -- it's obvious that 1) if he hasn't read any of the sources BEFORE he started editing and reverting the page, then he should not have edited it at all. Meanwhile, 2) no one needs to read SECONDARY sources to "find" proof that is CLEARLY visible in the PRIMARY document itself - the Kars Treaty, which unambiguously identifies all the 5 parties to the treaty. And his bad faith is further shown by his REMOVAL of Azerbaijani and Turkish URLs (even if they only interview Armenian FM), on the ground that they are "POV", whilst at the same time PLACEMENT/RETENTION of Armenian URLs. I guess that's his understanding of NPOV. --adil 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By whom is the issue still disputed, and on what basis? Biruitorul 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania. -- Petri Krohn 04:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious... Why are you linking so many articles to oil prices, which redirects to the The price of oil and the economy? There is already a comprehensive section on oil prices at Petroleum#Pricing. Thanks. --Madchester 21:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there may have been more backlinks before, and someone may have removed them. On the {{prod}} issue itself. If the price of oil and the economy gets deleted, then (and only then) should oil prices redirect to Petroleum#Pricing. -- Petri Krohn 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Continuation_War#Photo ... --Pudeo (Talk) 23:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious... what's your screen resolution, and what was the effect of my edit on your screen? — coelacan — 02:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, thank you. That's an effect seen in Internet Explorer which doesn't show up in my browser. Thanks for reminding me. — coelacan — 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About that Paisley Magnet School Students, ... I'd appreciate your views on Talk:M/S_Sea_Diamond#Paisley_Magnet_School as the one who included that info to the article --Hohenberg 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the great contribution, Petri. Yesterday I tried to find this old picture of Petäjärvi, as I had realized that it was not copyrighted, but I couldn't recall where I had seen it. BTW, I think that it is worth mentioning the 1939 Petäjärvi civil train bombing and 1944 Elisenvaara case in this article. Colchicum 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Should I assume from your recent amendmetns that you intend to write an article on the Swedish iron industry? If so, please do not let me discourage you, but you should not be surprosed if I contribute to it.
• However, I am not entirely happy about Oregrounds iron (or other spelling) being permanently redirected to the city of Öregrund. I have never entirely understood the relationship between the commodity and the place. This seems to relate to the rights of market towns, presumably going back to a period when ironmasters were supposed to sell their iron in a market. I suspect that did not in practice happen, the iron being sent direct froma shipping place near the forge to Stockholm, without being landed in Örgrund. Oregrounds iron was a particular commodity with known properties that made it uniquely suitable for the cementation process of making steel. Perhaps I should convert the redirect into an article myself, but will not be surprised to find amendments made by you.
• In the finery forge article, some one had changed the spelling of oregrounds iron to Öregrund in an article title. Right or wrong, the article title spells the word 'oregrounds'. I chose that spelling when writing the article, because it is one that I found in contemporary English documents. Peterkingiron 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 12 April, 2007, a fact from the article Saint Petersburg–Hiitola railroad, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 13:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted because the image "LOOKED" like WP:SPEEDY? Take it easy, it constituted fair use and no one wants to see the Birka Princess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoelitism (talk • contribs) 17:01, 12 April 2007

I'd be grateful if you'd consider the discussion at Template talk:LocateMe. Consensus appears to be against adding LocateMe to the article space, as you did on Aleksanterinkatu. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk)

On 13 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Crichton-Vulcan, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 11:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Finland. Great work!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 12:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

You claim in the article that the continuation war was an illegal war of aggression. I think you should elaborate on this, with proper references. I do not think that there exists even among the historians a consensus on this. --MPorciusCato 14:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Could you specify a legal war of aggression? Also your claim that no serious historian agree with opposing concept is too strict claim, f.ex. professor of history, Pentti Virrankoski, although emeritus, is clearly serious historian. Likewise, not all those who accept the legality of the war demand the return of the Karelian Isthmus or rectifying war-responsibility trial verdicts.--Whiskey 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check the discussion page before making your recent edit to the categorization of the article University of Dole? --Bejnar 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Category:Universities and colleges should not be spammed with articles of individual universities. -- Petri Krohn 18:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Soviet occupation of Romania. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Hi, You removed the ru interlink from this page. I've been trying to straighten out the interwikis for that page and for Admiralty. I don't know Russian, could you let me know what the two pages in Russian are, so i can make sure the links are now correct in other languages as well? Thanks, --SteveMtl 04:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please do not restore the interwikis on Admiralty or Admiralty (disambiguation). While you say they are all correct, in fact :de:Admiralität is a link to the general term, not the British Admiralty, so it should be linked to the disambiguation page. The problem is that the bots will now go "fix" the interwikis in other languages, and it will be a mess again. The only solution i could find was to make 2 exclusive lists, one for the British Admiralty, and one for the general term, and apply to all the languages. The only ones i was not sure of were of were ru and jp.--SteveMtl 18:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petri. Thanks for your message. I really tried to sound neutral despite the fact that I come from the Soviet-era dissident family which was heavily repressed under Stalin, and hence, I’m very much hostile to the Soviet ideology, not to mention Stalinism. Regards, Kober^Talk 12:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not to have made DYK, but thanks anyways for defending its length while I was away. --Oreo Priest 20:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, it did make it. Thanks a ton. --Oreo Priest 21:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks and try to avoid name-calling in the future. As your edit was just to create HTML comment from the removed section, therefore, in effect you only removed {{citation needed}} from my edit (see [4]). That claim about state secrecy has no references whatsoever, even discussion on talk page agrees with that. However, there was political controversy, but there are no citations about it. As it seems now, you are pushing POV agenda. DLX 06:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy sent a force into the Baltic commanded by Walter Cowan during the Russian civil war to aid the white russians and the Estonians. The Russians lost five destroyers, (three mined and two captured after being driven onto the beach and two obsolete cruisers sunk by Augustus Agar. The British lost the cruiser HMS Cassandra, two destroyers and the submarine L55. - I might get around to starting the article - but please go ahead in the meantime - Alan Foum

Boy, what a day... So you mean that the stone structure has actually been demolished already? Best, --Camptown 21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture from inside the tent shows absolutely nothing. Every stone has been removed. -- Petri Krohn 22:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think you should wait few days before adding such category ? maybe someone pays for it hehehe :) i mean the event is still in the begining :) have a nice day Ammar (^Talk - ^{Don't Talk}) 02:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it was destroyed?? I found a picture which shows absolutely nothing. So it believe and think it must be destroyed. When I beliebe so, then that's a fact and I can write it to dictionary... blah.. nevermind..— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.156.20.99 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 9 May 2007

Hi Petri. I know that you and I have not always seen eye to eye on this wiki and on another one (understatement cum wordplay) - but do you not find it funny that a user who is only with Wikipedia since a few days starts an AfD (I needed a lot of help and time when I did one of those) and does something like this: [5]? Perhaps he has been here before, if you get my drift? By the way, do not forget to sign your vote(s) on these AfDs!--Pan Gerwazy 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have been on Wikipedia before, and made an occasional edit. But nothing so far had provoked me to start active participation.

As for my proficiency in using simple web-based interfaces, what can I say? I am a programmer by trade.

Your link is not related to me, though. Digwuren 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there are two of you, I hope? I was referring to Alexia Death - did not even dream that you could be as new as that until Petri pointed it out to me. And no, it is not simply interfaces. Sorry, Petri, for using your space over this. --Pan Gerwazy 00:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with vague accusations: you desribe long ears, and a whole bunch of donkeys feels offended. Digwuren 18:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! -- Petri Krohn 00:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn, you have repeatedly pushed your weird WP:POV on the page of Bronze Soldier of Tallinn, without properly explaining yourself, as I have documented, and you have not ceased or started explaining. Please cease or start explaining; otherwise, I will be forced to put your good faith in participating on Wikipedia under serious suspicion. Digwuren 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a section (Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#Myths) in want of references to the government's secrecy claims. Remembering that you were the one who most frequently added these claims into the main article, you might want to fill in the missing references. Digwuren 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article British submarine flotilla in the Baltic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 23:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.193.75.169's edits to Megan's Law were not necessarily vandalism (unlikely though it might be). Perhaps he was simply removing what he thought was unsourced original research. As it is, that article has only external links. Christopher Connor 13:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri! Thanks for making a copyright investigation. As regards to the memorial, I think the past days' development has been quite interesting, and it was probably essential to stand guard guard during the weekend to prevent some really wicked editing attempts. --Camptown 08:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Petri. Thank you for paying attention to my person. However, as I didn't vandalized or ever consider to vandalize in the future, that kind of tagging could be taken as equal to personal attack and harassment. Please try to avoid that kind of practise in the future. Thank you. 80.235.55.122 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've seen the monument about 10 years ago. I happend to know the Estonian minister of justice at the time, and when I asked him why the statue (unlike most other monuments from the Soviet time) had not yet been removed, he replied: "It would cause to much trouble". --Camptown 20:04, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey petri your client came to edit )))) Beatles Fab Four 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review Dmitri Linter where user DLX forcibly pushes his POV tagging without any justifications. Vlad fedorov 12:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question here, knowledge of the subject matter of an individual article is not a prerequisite for participating in deletion debates. Anyone with an opinion on how Wikipedia should function (and what information it should contain) is welcome to join in. Besides, neutral voices can often be helpful. --RFBailey 22:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend Petri! I encourage you to be more active agains neo-Nazis which try to rewrite the history. 85.140.243.184 19:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Petry! Take a look at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn#For_some_who_try_to_forget_and_rewrite_the_history LOVE AND PEACE 85.140.211.220 00:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They try to raise their heads again. Unbelievable. Take a look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_evasion_of_Beatle_Fab_Four Beatle Fab Four 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petri Krohn. We would like to publish this image of "View of Amsterdam Avenue looking north from Columbia University overpass, the elevated courtyard spans across Amsterdam Avenue between West 116th and 117th Streets" in a Sociology textbook. Would you please contact me at jillenge@yahoo.com for details? I would like to obtain your written permission to publish this photo. Thank you. -Jill

Yes, you can have my permission. I will send you an email. -- Petri Krohn 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you are reading the proposal carefully. Try reading it again. Honestly, I think you misread it. BTW there is some further discussion of the issue here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palestine#Consistent_Palestinian_naming_standards. --Abnn 01:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Petri,

As I understood it, you don't disagree with most (all?) of the CfR, but are more concerned on the super-categorisation of a specific category. If I misunderstood please ignore this, but if that is the case, perhaps you would consider changing the "oppose" to a "support"; I'm very hopeful that this passes due to the compromise and agreement on the part of both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors, not an overly common occurrence :-) , and so anything you could do in that direction would be of tremendous assistance. Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 02:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your message on my talk page, I share some of your concerns. I believe we should attempt to describe to our readers the current linguistic situation in Estonia. The percentage of Francophones in Canada is smaller than the Russian-speakers in Estonia, yet Canada is officially bi-lingual, that's what I'm thinking about. Do you think this report contains enough information to start the article about Estonization? --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:F-knoll01.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Petri Krohn/Knoll. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 04:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn to 3 Löwi: Your edits to Congress of Estonia have not been very helpfull. Also your edit summaries, "typical pro-Russian imperialist POV and factual errors" are not too civil. If was really pushing a POV expressing my own opinion telling the truth, I would say, that the Congress of Estonia was a rasict organization with the aim of establishing an apartheid state. If I was pushing the Russian POV, I would say that they intened to restore the fascist state and hoped to achieve ethnic cleansing. -- Petri Krohn 17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Privet, Petri! Thanks for the compliment. One should be glad to remain just a 'nationalist' for you when according to edit history you seem to regularly label most Estonians as either 'racists' or 'terrorists'. --3 Löwi 04:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have added a reference to the Nuremberg Laws into the article of Congress of Estonia. This is non-factual, inappropriate, and apparently designed to serve no other purpose than to convey the Nazi connotations of the Nuremberg laws onto Estonian restoration-era citizenship policies. I consider it blatant pushing of a private WP:POV, in obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, and most unwelcome. Digwuren 07:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Siberia (disambiguation) `'mikka 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words. You are correct that few seem to know of the existence of this interesting and important feature. A web search yielded remarkably few results and I once was concerned that someone would claim it is not notable. I did some looking and cannot find that there ever was thought of making a canal. The regions such a canal would have served were very thinly settled until the coming of the railways in the 1870s, and rails then adequately accommodated the increased need for bulk transport which they indirectly created. The Red, Bois des Sioux, and Minnesota Rivers are very small streams and water supply could be an issue. But there is at least one historical instance where boats were taken through the gap during a wet year. Kablammo 01:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. My attempt to wikify it was also reverted. see top of page --TheFEARgod (Ч) 23:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might want to check out Government databases & extend it. Cheers! Tazmaniacs 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Congress of Estonia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Digwuren 12:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I resent the personal attack in revert comments of Congress of Estonia. Not liking your approach to getting your POV to dominate all actually sourced ones, does NOT make me a meatpuppet. Please refine from accusations like this even in revert comments.--Alexia Death 14:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not restore the "competitive democracy" link in Mongolia again. This isn't an established and general term, illustrated by the fact that the redirect you created marked its first appearance in Wikipedia. In those contexts where I could find it in sources, it just highlights one of several properties that are common to most modern democracies. There is no need to artificially distinguish the current Mongolian system from the completely irrelevant democratic centralism either. --Latebird 16:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have called another editor vandal less than 24 hours after expressing a position that this is not a good idea. You might want to explain what has changed your mind; otherwise, this will appear to be an indication of hypocrisy. Digwuren 12:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Estland (disambiguation), by Digwuren, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Estland (disambiguation) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Estland (disambiguation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Estland (disambiguation) itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 12:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What type of help can I provide? If making Estland a disambig page would make User:Digwuren happy, I would let him him have it. Have I missed something? Alex Bakharev 13:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Estonia (1917-1918), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Digwuren 12:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, there's a discussion of improvement suggestions going on at Talk:Congress of Estonia. You have shown interest in this particular article before, so you might want to contribute to the discussion. Digwuren 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have renominated the redirects for deletion. They were nominated before but since they were bundled with Estland, whose nomination I withdrew, the handling admin also cancelled the RfDs early. You voted on the previous discussion; I would like you to know that I have copied your vote and comment from the previous discussion into Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 27. Digwuren 20:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the good words on my Talk page, and for lending a hand with my stalkers. It has been a very frustrating issue for me that has stretched from here, to the Commons, to the other national Wikipedias. It is unfortunate when a person (me) puts a lot of time and effort into working on Wikipedia to have people who have contributed little-to-no value attempt to frustrate me, but I guess that's a danger of on-line collaboration. Thankfully, many in the Wikipedia community have helped, although who knows how the stalking and trolling will take shape next. I also like your photographs. I remember placing your Glass House photograph prominently in the Philip Johnson article for that section; it was quite good. Best to you. By the way, I have about 20 of the properties on Central Park West on my computer that I have yet to upload for any future pages. I will forward you and Ivo Shandor the Commons link once I have the time; I only did the ones with living current pages. Dave --David Shankbone 01:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the nomination page:
(self-nomination)This article is simply excellent. Excellent writing, interesting subject matter, improved during its Good Article trial, and eye-witnesses have left notes on the Talk page that talk about the article being so accurate, it's like they were living it all over again. Written in a NPOV and heavily cited with the highest of sources, it includes GFDL media, is wikified to the fullest, a fantastic "See Also" section, and looks at the story from every angle. --David Shankbone 18:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Petri, you managed to support an edit with a reference to Zetterberg. Presumably it is on your book shelf, so could you kindly add the page number of the relevant passage to the reference. It seems to be in Finnish, but never mind, I suppose it is a good start. I want to compare it with my English language sources tonight.

Those Tartu grads are bright, aren't they? They seem to effortlessly provide reasoned argument backed by cites to reliable sources. You may question how some newcomers seem to be up to speed so quickly in regard to wiki policy, but in the final analysis, these policies of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV are no different to what you may find in any academic environment that these grads would be familiar with. I guess that demonstrates the value of a university education. However I must say I think your resort to administrative procedure in an attempt to shut them up was rather misguided and sad in some ways.

In case you missed it on Talk:Estland, could you provide references that "Estland" is anything other than Danish for Estonia. Let's see the evidence so we can have a reasoned and robust discussion on the talk page. Happy edits. Martintg 04:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from User talk:Lightmouse#Please stop!)

You have been delinking dates in a number of articles. I do not see a concensus for this.

In your edit summary you claim the edits are minor fixes. Instead yo ushould say you hav "delinked dates". Even worse, you have marked the edits as minir (m), these edits are not minor and possibly destroy hours of work by other editors. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn 22:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the edit summary. I did not mark them as minor but then Greswik asked me to do that (see above). Links are used for context and there is no need to link plain english terms or partial dates. Full dates can be linked so that date preferences work. If you look at all the dates to Sunday and November and 2006, you will see that excessive links are a big problem on Wikipedia. Lightmouse 11:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Years should be linked, when they first appear in the text. -- Petri Krohn 01:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you think that, many editors do. But it is a misunderstanding of the two reasons for 'links':

• Full dates should be linked for preferences. That is the reason why Wikipedia treats dates in a special way.
• Other links are there in case the reader needs to look them up to understand the article content. There is no requirement to link the first instance of bits of dates.

Hope that helps. Lightmouse 10:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest listing him at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents because while he doesn't seem to be vandalising (which is what I was patrolling the other night), having more admins take a closer look at what he was doing seems like a good idea. --Fire Star 火星 13:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I already did. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive251#Bot delinking dates

Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eesti Rahvusliku Liikumise, by Digwuren, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eesti Rahvusliku Liikumise fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eesti Rahvusliku Liikumise, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Eesti Rahvusliku Liikumise itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited second option a bit so that my proposal that you moved there would fit to it.--Staberinde 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwurens behaviour at Jüri Uluots is obnoxious POV pushing and revert warring. Do you support a RfC? Otto 07:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues here do not seem to be related to the Jüri Uluots article only. I would suggest a more comprehensive approach. -- Petri Krohn 04:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that it is not only that page. What approach do you suggest? May be I can help. Otto 16:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do it[6] again, that thing is called vandalism.--Staberinde 15:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, it's a pity, that so far I've seen their skillfulness only in POV pushing and personal attacks on the talk page. I've been always aware of 3RR, so I never was blocked for this, although I should be rather thankful to them for reminding me this on my talk page recently, when I made three reverts in a row :-) Cmapm 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for editing my page, it looks good now :-). M.V.E.i. 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Petri, could you take a look? WP:AN/I#User:M.V.E.i. I added my opinion Beatle Fab Four 13:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We know that in some societies "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others". Petri, you should tell your words. Beatle Fab Four 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the deletion of the category I created. There was an on-going debate on whether to delete that category that you may want to read. Some of the comments were by wikipedians that did not know that octagon-shaped buildings were a 19th Century American trend - a fad or movement; they assumed I had created a category for a building shape. (I am an architect.) I believe all architectural movements/styles/fads deserve a category, but I was not in the majority opinion. Most building shapes are not associated with movements, styles or fads (ie, the Acropolis is not significant for being a rectangle, but Longwood/Natchez is significant for being an octagon.) Before initiating a buildings and structures by shape, you may want to discuss it on the architecture forum. Again, thanks! --Baxterguy 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On June 7, 2007, a fact from the article Finnish-Novgorodian Wars, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions in helping Finland to be represented on the main page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{(posted also to Alex Bakharev's talk}

Sorry to "troll" your page like this, but could you please point out where I have denied the Holocaust? My claim were that Estonians did not start killing Jews before Germans arrived - and that Estonian SS-Legion did not participate in killing of Estonian Jews. Considering that SS-Legion was created after Estonia was declared Judenfrei by Germans... well, it is kinda hard to claim they killed Jews while Legion didn't exist. As for the first claim, I believe it to be true, although I have no rock solid sources either way. Estonia only had approx. 4500 Jews before WWII, about 500 - wealthiest - were deported/killed by Soviets before Germans arrived, further ~3000 fled the only way they could - East (some to Sweden as well). So, I see no reason why Estonians would have killed Jews before Germans arrived - wealthy ones were gone (reason for pogroms in some other countries) and Estonians had always had excellent relations with Jews and Jewish community - which continued after Soviets re-occupied Estonia (see Yuri Lotman and Zara Mints, for example) - and that goodwill is still present today. DLX 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded at User talk:Alex Bakharev#User:M.V.E.i. -- Petri Krohn 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Petri, can you read Estonian or do you know anyone who does? --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand about 50%. I do know someone else who does. (In fact I know quite many here on Wikipedia, but they do not seem very helpfull.) -- Petri Krohn 09:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then check your e-mail. I need help in translating this page. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is what you are looking for:

• "Suri 5. aprillil 1969 Leicesteris."
• Died on April 5, 1969 in Leicester, England.

-- Petri Krohn 15:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. I'm searching for evidence that he was an active member of the Estonian community and even published something during his self-imposed "exile". --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This fact comes from the list of documents stored at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This reference was however removed from the article. The Soviet Estonian collection of evidence includes several articles written by Ain-Ervin Mere in Estonian exile newspapers. I would infer, that regularly contributing to exile newspapers (and living in exile) makes one an "active member of the exile community". -- Petri Krohn 15:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If one may speculate, one can assume that his prominence in the Estonian exile community was what sparked the trials in the first place. As he was not available for procecution, other suspects, in Estonia, had to be found. It may thus be, that if he had kept a low profile, his collaborators might have saved their lives. There is something fishy in the fact that the trials only started in 1960. It may have been a an effort to avoid blaming Estonians for the Holocaust. Now, all of this is just speculation. -- Petri Krohn 15:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are great, ain't they? Especially when there's espionage going around. Any kind of cloak and dagger 'speculations' may be thrown around with impunity!

Then again, there's the real world. The one that we write about in Wikipedia, as contrary to Uncyclopedia. And in the real world, the delays were caused by a number of factors, none quite as flashy as your fancy, but the most important ones being the time it took track down a refugee and the following hope, held by KGB, that Mere, a former NKVD agent, might still be an useful spy. Once it became clear that wouldn't happen, the trials were held with great noise and publicity. Digwuren 20:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, on that page it is also mentioned that Mere had worked for NKVD at one moment;) --Staberinde 15:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. If I may speculate even further, I would guess he was also involved in this operation. -- Petri Krohn 16:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be fascinated to learn that I have counted and removed a total of 16 accusations, "warnings" and charges by you on my talk page, every single one of them frivolous -- even more clearly so in retrospect. Given that your very first introduction to me was a claim of my supposed "stalking" you, it might be enlightening for you to review some fine articles on psychology. I heartily recommend Psychological projection and paranoia, just to mention three P-y things. Digwuren 17:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this after your long history of deletions such as [7], [8] and especially [9] is merely a display of further hypocrisy. And we haven't even gotten to your interesting theories of a "known cabal of trolls" yet! Digwuren 06:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted the "Return to top of page" link in the articles on "Prometheism," "Edmund Charaszkiewicz," "Poetry" and "Perfection." Is there a practical or policy reason not to give readers this convenience, which I have seen used on Wikisource? Nihil novi 22:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a "convenience" but an inconvenience. This is 2007, and even my grandmother can scroll to the top of the page on her own!
• It is not part of WP:MOS.
• If you want it, you should ask for it to be included on every page. The way to do this, is not to add stuff like this on individual pages, but to add it on the page template. You should really take the issue somewhere else.

As to Wikisource, maybe the poor guys could not find anything else to link to, and still wanted to see some color on their page, so they came up with this bastard link.

-- Petri Krohn 22:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Return" feature is mainly helpful in long articles. Nihil novi 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust

Q:How many Jews were killed by Estonian SS legioners? (Sic. Not a word about Estonian Jews only)

[10] Quote from DLX: “As for your second question, that is easy: 0. They [Estonian legion] did not participate in Holocaust”. No comments.

[11] Quotes from DLX: 1) “You asked how many were killed by Estonian SS (that is Waffen-SS legion, as there were no Estonians in SS-proper). And the answer is still the same – none”. 2) “And prime minister [Ansip] apologized for actions of a few collaborators - to be honest, I don't know if any other country has done that.” No comments.

[12] Quote from DLX: “Actually, what I said was that Estonian SS-Legion didn't participate in Holocaust in Estonia (they weren't formed before 1942, Holocaust in Estonia was done by the end of 1941) - or abroad. This still stands”. No comments.

[13] Quote from someone Martintg: “How can the Estonian Legion be involved in killing Jews, the Legion wasn't formed until 1942, after Estonia's Jews were killed in 1941”. No comments.

Some other references:

[14] Quote from DLX: “Nazi capitulation? There was no such thing”. No comments.

[15] Quote from DLX: “fifty years of Russian occupation was definitely worse then three years of German rule” No comments.

[16] Quote from DLX: “I am an established (1000+ edits) user, who hasn't broken any wikipedia rules, ever” Comment: He was lying, was blocked before. See his block log: [17]

[18] Quote from DLX: “looters and thieves are heroes in Russia” Comment: Racist slur?

Beatle Fab Four 23:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{(laughs quietly)} After Petri had to ask for help - and searching through I-don't-know-how-many edits, this is the "worst" you can find? Ripping pieces out of context, such as [19] - that was German capitulation, not "Nazi capitulation". As for my block log, you conveniently forgot to mention that the previous block was overturned, as it was used by admin in questionable circumstances (namely, content dispute). Your holocaust denial accusations show clearly just one thing - that you, BFF, believe that Estonian SS Legion must have been killing Jews, because, well, they are Estonian SS Legion. I have no knowledge what they did afterwards - but they did not participate in murder of those 1000..1500 Estonian Jews in 1941. And why do you even try to show “fifty years of Russian occupation was definitely worse then three years of German rule” as something bad or untrue - once again, failing to mention, that in another case I said that fifty years of German rule would have probably been worse then 50 years of Soviet rule.

Oh, and user:Martintg is an Australian.

DLX 03:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While some individuals may have killed jews and then subsequently joined the Estonian Legion (20th Division), it was a frontline combat formation than consisted mainly of conscripts, formed in 1944 and primarily fought the Red Army in the Battle of Narva 1944. Beatle Fab Four may be confusing the 20th with the 36th Police Battalion who were clearly implicated in crimes against humanity. Martintg 05:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been inserting Livonia as birthplace for this Estonian writer without bothering to argument your persistence in talk. Here are a few reasons why it has no place there:

1) Livonia has never been a geographic territory just an arbitrary administrative unit and that is mentioned just to please you in the current version.

2) Wikipedia is written for readers and what is easier to comprehend: Explanation on the grounds of current Estonia, making the reader at least vaguely aware what location are we talking about or some defunct obscure territory that for a casual reader gives no comprehensible information? Goal of that sentence is to give the reader an inkling of geographical location not the whole historical land division, and so Livonia would be undue weight in that context.

So please stop, present your arguments and seek consensus.--Alexia Death 18:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tagged a statement in Arnold Meri article that had a clear source in references. The source is in Estonian and it would be understandable if some non-Estonian understanding person had tagged it, but you do not have that excuse. So pretty please, read the sources before tagging.--Alexia Death 06:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to explain how you came to insert your smears onto WP:3RR a mere 20 minutes after I made a report there? Digwuren 16:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not go to WP:AN/3RR to have you blocked. Your block was not even on the agenda, and came as an absolute surprise to me. (It was however fully justified.) My edits there were in support of User:206.186.8.130, who, i felt, you were unjustly attacking on WP:AN/3RR and on his talk page. -- Petri Krohn 00:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in ongoing discussion 206.186.8.130 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Einsatzgruppe A, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Digwuren 10:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Allied occupation of_Europe, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Allied occupation of_Europe satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of_Europe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Allied occupation of_Europe during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Digwuren 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Allied occupation of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Digwuren 10:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was brought to my attention that you reverted latest Digwuren edit[20] claiming it to be WP:TROLL. Although, I don't agree with all the tactics of Digwuren, the text was well formed with required reasons given, so I would join with his request for you to stop pushing alternative history. Aswell, I would like to point out that your racist opinion towards Estonians is not appropriate for Wikipedia. So I demand you treat us with the same respect as other wikipedia editors and answer to totally valid requests such as the one posted to you by Digwuren. Suva 16:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out, that I am Finnish, so the claim of "racist opinion towards Estonians" sounds far-fetched. -- Petri Krohn 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misphrased myself by using word racist. As it's not the matter of biological race rather than nationality. But your attitude towards Estonian wikipedia editors is becoming intolerable. Also, you forgot to answer Digwuren request. Suva 17:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not feed the trolls. -- Petri Krohn 17:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As he has in the past, Petri Krohn is spewing nonsensical accusations in order to get out of answering inconvenient questions. I'm starting to think we may need a WP:RFC/U. Digwuren 18:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In preparation, I have started User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn. The complaint is already there; some expansion and collecting the applicable diffs will be the main tasks to do before filing. Constructive contributions & cooperation are welcome. Digwuren 11:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Estonian Wikipedia editors WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:TROLL is offensive technique to push your own POV. I join with the idea of RFC. Suva 06:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just deleting claims of wrongdoing on your part wont make them go away. Digwurren's claims seem well substantiated even to a person who has not seen you engage in these activities(I personally have and believe you need a good hard look at what you are doing) and your removal of them is just a wasted opportunity to refute them.--Alexia Death 22:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 Obviously, the fact that this article is under probation, does not really stop them. In fact, it enboldens them: we ( that is four people, already) are the vandals!

By the way, since you probably do not follow my talk page, have a look at this funny exchange: [21]. Asper Biotech had been marked for speedy deletion (it is on 3 Löwi's talk page).--Pan Gerwazy 16:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to go forward with the WP:RFC/U regarding your conduct. In display of openness and good faith, I'm notifying you that the preparations will be done on User:Digwuren/Petri Krohn. As of now, I and other volunteers have sifted through edits you have made since the beginning of May; that (hopefully) leaves only four more months to go.

You may find inaccuracies in the material collected. If you do, please let me know. I wouldn't want to make false accusations, after all. You may also want to comment on the matter before a formal WP:RFC/U gets filed; such comments will certainly be welcomed.

If you choose to not do anything, this will remain your last notice on this matter from me before the formal filing. Digwuren 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although Nazi collaborations was one of the reasons, it is not the sole reason. Other reasons of this so calle treason were: Owning a farm, being connected with estonian political organizations. The latter was not related to nazis. Please stop trying to push Nazis everywhere.

For other news. Trying to get rid of digwuren won't help your situation, I will file neccesary RFC/U myself. Digwuren is not the leader of the so called "Korp! Estonia on Wheels". I would call both you for a reasonable co-operation instead. Suva 12:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, who is? -- Petri Krohn 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as Korp! Estonia on Wheels. It's just a theory of conspiration of yours, instead of this you should concentrate on creating useful, NPOV and sourced information to wikipedia. Suva 13:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful images here and here. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These should in fact go to Commons. -- Petri Krohn 16:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I find really fascinating in this story, is the fact that Germans risked transporting German citizens to within 100 miles of an US embassy, to be slaughtered and used as sex slaves by "unreliable" foreigners. Did they not consider the risk of information leaking out in 1942? -- Petri Krohn 16:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the history shows, the US has believed that every anti-Russian person is a saint. They always supported Estonians as a destablizing factor in this delicate region. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my reasoning for reverting. Let's say two people were the only ones working on an article. One person decides to make a change, so he discusses it on the article's talk page. The other person agrees, so the first person goes ahead and makes the edit. Then a third person comes along, and without discussing it puts the content back in, and doesn't discuss it until he gets reverted. Then he keeps pushing for his revision, although prior consensus (at least that's what I call it) was reached between the two original editors. Let me know if my reasoning makes sense. — Alex^(U|C|E) 01:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.

As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - German Democratic Republic, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.

http://survey.soc.surrey.ac.uk//public/survey.php?name=wiki_norms

Bugs-Bunny Bunny 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you edited the Der Giftpilz article. I am having trouble assuming good faith in this edit, as the statement you provided was definitely POV from one side (you mentioned the book, but didn't mention the KAPO planning to start criminal investigation on the topic), and probably even UNDUE. Also why did you mention that the book is published in Estonian and forgot to mention it was published also in several other languages.

I would like to ask you an explantion for this and other related edits: In my eyes these have two purposes:

• To show that Nazism and racisim has very important role in Estonia or even officially mainstream.
• To lessen or deny Soviet crimes on Estonian soil.

Are my theories correct? If not, what are your goals in editing Estonia/Baltics/Soviet related pages this way?

Also your definite hatred or repulsion towards Estonian editors and editors from other countries with similar views. What caused it? What would you propose as solution for this?

And I am not intending to troll or attack. I just want some clarification because for me the situation is extremely confusing. Suva 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answering one of your questions. I had no intention of waging edit wars or pushing POV on Estonia related articles. My latest involvement started already in May 2006, when I took these pictures of the Bronze Soldier. The day before the riots I uploaded them to Commons and expanded the Bronze Soldier article. -- Petri Krohn 00:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't have intentions to wage edit wars, but now you do have? So let me to continue my theories. The conflict started when one of the Estonian editors who was at that time quite emotional, attacked you because of some of your neutralizing edits, and you took it personally? In that case wouldn't it be time to stop and time to get agreement on the disputes and stop the POV wars? You should have concidered feelings of estonian people aswell before stepping into flamewar. It doesn't have good effect on psychology when bunch of drunk criminals destroy your city and call you a fashist and threaten to kill you, if they hear you speaking estonian on streets even weeks later. I myself couldn't sleep atleast for one week after the events. So reading something in the style "liberated tallinn" made me angry aswell.

Now things have calmed down a bit. I think, instead of trying to heat them up again by looking for evidence about estonians being nazi, we should get to some sort of resolution and be resposible wikipedians. So what do you propose? Suva 06:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you have other things on your mind now, but later this tidbit may interest you too. Another reason why we really need an article on that subject. I just found out that Wikipedia's treatment of the Georgian Uprising of Texel (note the timeline - Germans were fighting Georgians and Dutch long after the official surrender) contains a terrible mistake, in most if not all language versions. After returning to the Soviet Union, the Georgians were not prosecuted or persecuted, in fact they were treated as heroes who had fought for the Soviet Union in Holland. This has been known since May 4 1999, when a number of Georgians coming to Holland with a state visit by Georgian patriarch Ilya II explained this to a Dutch newspaper, one of the most serious ones, the NRC. Much of the article by the way was devoted to support by Ilya to the Kosovans - no Russophiles there. Unfortunately, my only source for the text of the NRC article is a web forum on WWII in Dutch. But there can be no doubt in my mind that "our" version of this part of the "liberation" of the Netherlands is plain wrong. ([22])

It seems like someone just pre-supposed that these guys were treated in the same way as other Soviet citizens who had spent part of the war in German-held territory, even when that was through no fault of their own... And then it was taken over in all languages. Even in the Russian version!!! To be sure, it was questioned on the German talk page, but the anonymous editor doubting this got reversed immediately.

By the way, I sourced the Belgian occupation, I think. And sorry for the disturbance. --Pan Gerwazy 09:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that when a group of people in the Soviet Union were sent to internal exile in European Russia, English language sources, including Wikipedia, will always report that they "where excecuted or sent to GULAG prison camps in Siberia." -- Petri Krohn 23:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that definitely did happen a lot, but this was different. Actually, they all seem to have gone back to Georgia, which was probably what they wanted. They seem to have received the normal medals and pensions of soldiers who always fought on the good side (no "heroes of the SU", however, I was wrong there). However, on one of these videos about the events you hear a Dutch journalist explain how Georgian tourists now coming to the Texel museum seem to be very amazed to see their grand-father or grand-uncle in full German uniform. So (OR, yes, I know) it could be that there was some quidproquo: they had to pretend that they had been something else than they had been, slave-labourers perhaps, there were a lot of camps on the coast and on the islands for building and re-inforcing the Westwall... By the way, as I said above, my sentence about "heroes of the Soviet Union" was a misconception. That was applied to the dead only, and I have now put that in the English article on the uprising. Why these guys were treated so leniently by Stalin, escapes me. Perhaps because they were Georgian? Perhaps (OR again) they were kept alive to be used as a future embarassment to the Western allies - after all, if the Western allies had helped the Georgians sooner, most of this massacre would have been avoided but there would have been an awkward case of "Soviets" liberating part of the Netherlands.(this unsigned text was by me, --Pan Gerwazy 22:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Would you be willing to agree to the schema outlined at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn#Outside view by DrKiernan, which is developed from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn#Outside view by User:Colchicum, in an attempt to mediate the dispute between you and other users? DrKiernan 14:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Petri. Digwuren has moved the RFC back from "Candidate pages" to "Approved pages".[23] Are you prepared to accept this, in other words, to waive any requirement for further dispute resolution before the RFC goes ahead? I'm not any too impressed by the resolution attempts so far, myself, but in view of your own plans for taking the conflict to ArbCom, (unless I'm misinformed), I thought it might be convenient for everybody involved to get the issues aired in an RFC first. Not least for the ArbCom. Please let me know your thoughts. Bishonen | talk 15:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Petri. The edit to the abiotic petrogenesis page should reflect the fact that it is a hypothesis in an objective and scientific fashion. To be a theory, it must be proven scientifically, which, at this point, it is not. It is not perspective pushing, just the most objective way of labeling abiotic petrogenesis. To spin it as a theory is giving it too much credit at this point, and to label it as such could be considered perspective pushing as well. I would be interested in discussing this further on the talk page so we can compare peer reviewed sources to ensure the objectivity of this page. Thank you for your time and your contributions. However, I am going to revert the page back to reflect that it is a hypothesis. Thanks for your time and you contributions.

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Aarne Orjatsalo, by Harriv (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Aarne Orjatsalo fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Aarne Orjatsalo, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Aarne Orjatsalo itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 17:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to join talk at State terrorism by the United States. You did read my extensive comments on the unsuitability of those sources before reverting, correct? - Merzbow 04:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not find any related comments on talk. Can you please provide a dif? -- Petri Krohn 10:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on et:Mall:Eestivj. The Soviet-era material derives from here. The parentheses around Mäe's name were meant to indicate he was not actually Prime Minister (or rather President of the Council of Ministers) of the Estonian SSR, but something else altogether. If you wish to put an asterisk explaining this, or remove his name, or what have you, feel free, and I'll assess whatever solution you craft. Biruitorul 16:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sisu_XA-180_Lebanon.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with facts from the articles Pentimal system, and Spirit Pond runestones, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 06:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Digwuren 17:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no desire to delete the Jim Raynor page. In fact, if you click the link to my user page, you will see just the opposite. The Clawed One 03:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is the purpose of this page, but I have noted some interesting recent developments. --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 12 July, 2007, a fact from the article American Holland class submarines, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 10:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Ant Hill Cooperative, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. DGG (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to List of NASCO member cooperatives, other NN trivia can go here too. -- Petri Krohn 09:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a note, that by revert to Ghirlando's biased version of the voting you erased one vote and an opinion of another user. This is not the page for edit-warring, especially if the votes are lost in the process. --Hillock65 12:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(You must mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia)

No I did not: I have kept the vote by User:Alaexis. All other edits are reverts, and do not contain any new comments or votes. As for the bias and POV: I have not voted on this discussion and I do not know if I will. -- Petri Krohn 12:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely my post hasn't been deleted. There must've been some mistake. Alæxis_¿question? 12:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you haven't voted, then why do you feel that Ghirlandajo's structure is justified? Would you like to be grouped under "Finnish users" yourself every time you voted? His edits are clearly meant to affect the vote. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me very unhelpful. Are you seriously suggesting that some of the votes here are by 90 year old Wikipedians who commited atrocities during the Holocaust? This seems to me extremely far fetched to say the least. Balcer 01:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Skeletons in the closet" most often refers to family secrets, rather than personal secrets. -- Petri Krohn 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify again, do you believe that granchildren are responsible for any sins of their grandfathers? Balcer 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, he just likes to throw accusations around and then believe in them. We had a long discussion over it when Bronze Soldier of Tallinn was a hot topic. Digwuren 11:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice: [24]

As per this comment you left at the Estophobia AfD, i've blocked you for a period of 72h. Please refrain from doing that i the future or else you'd face harsher blocks. Please try other means of DR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Korps! Estonia celebrates today. Several days of tireless block shopping on WP:ANI and WP:AN - and here you have the result. Petri was a major nuisance for them, because no other editor was able and (or) willing to counter their attempts to push their speicific (shall we say idiosyncratic) interpretation of the Holocaust into Wikipedia. Digwuren is back at work on Anti-Estonian sentiment and Estophilia. This is a potent signal to the trolls what they should do in order to achieve prolonged blocks of established and objective contributors. Nice work, Fayssal, thanks. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my sincere apologies to Estonian editors who may have been offended by my uncivil comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. If this was the comment that forced the early closure of the AfD against my vote, I accept the result and take full responsibility.

I ask that whoever sees this will do two things.

1. Pass my apologies to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Complaint about user Petri Krohn.
2. Remove the last sentence, starting with "I would not be surprised if some of the editors..." from the archived version of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia, by either removing the text completely or replacing it with (uncivil comment removed).

As to the rest of my comment: I will come back to the issues, with sources and references, but now is not the time for that.

My only other edits for the last 22 hours are saying WikiThanks for boldness to four editors who voted or decided against me in the AfD. Today, I have nothing else to say. -- Petri Krohn 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm re-attaching the NPOV tag to the Newport Tower article, as simply removing it without discussion is hardly contructive. And while I agree that the section I tagged is indeed displaying a 'Point of View' (several in fact...), it also reads like an argument between writers with differing opinions, hardly what you'd call Neutral.

I'm still not sure if the bulk of the issues fall under the Neutral Point of View category, or the No Original Research category, but the page needs help. Sadly, I'm not the person to do it. I suggest reading up on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words and Wikipedia:No original research; And then weighing in on the talk page. Deleting an NPOV tag will not make the problem go away. Daemon Lotos 05:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikilinks for future reference:

• User talk:206.186.8.130
• User talk:RJ CG
• User talk:FayssalF#RFC on Petri Krohn
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive269#User:Ghirlandajo pushing his political POV in inappropriate places
• Talk:Russo-Estonian relations#RJ CG's nasty manipulations
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive270#User:RJ CG - single-purpose account for edit warring?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Administrator User:FayssalF abuse

-- Petri Krohn 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, we have to stick to secondary sources when writing an article. There has not been a local tradition, written or verbal, about Sergius and Herman of Valaam, because the Finnish Orthodox Church would have been overjoyed if there were and would have quoted it with gusto. Now even the Church speculates about the date of the founding of the monastery. Traditions, if not written down, are very unreliable sources! Cheers! --Tellervo 08:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the date at Talk:Valaam Monastery. -- Petri Krohn 10:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I created the article: Sergius of Valaam. -- Petri Krohn 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that we have to back with references every new statement we make in an article. So,

that is missing in your article about St. Sergius of Valaam. Sorry, that I have to remind you of this, as I quite feel how happy you would be believing in your traditional way. Nice that you put the picture of St. George from the church in Staraya Ladoga in the article about the Finnish Orthodox Church! --Tellervo 10:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I thought that red links are links that lead nowhere i.e. dead links, so I have removed them. It is quite O.K. to restore them. What is the function of red links? Cheers!--Tellervo 10:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Petri. I have frequently over the last few weeks found myself in the position to have to explain to various Wikipedians what kind of editors we are dealing with in these Dalmatia-related articles. I know I have a personal interest in the conflict but let me point out these objective facts: There exists a certain group of Italian editors, with a strong interest in these matters, that do not posses a very good knowledge of English. Because of these traits they are heavily involved in every conflict of oppinion, but are unable to do much more than CONSTANTLY revert, copy paste, and occasionally write a couple of nearly illegible sentences in the articles. Because of this inability (or perhaps their unwillingness to work harder than most of us in order to write English) they nearly never constructively debate the issues, and when they do write something on the talkpage, it is not with the intention to improve the text, but to vent their anger at those who have dared to work on it. We hope you will see that Slavic editors I am associated with are a level-headed bunch that is only trying to protect articles against severe degradation by right-wing Italians. I know this all sounds biased, but if you look into the matter a little better I think you may find we are not the radicals here (and we are certainly not communists). Regards, DIREKTOR 00:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to official website pages. Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without gving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism.

I contacted you since you know wikipedia very well and you might solve this problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 July 2007

Not that it is any of my business, but that user is known to be a level-headed fellow. I hope this has nothing to do with the apalling Serbo-Croatian realtions on this encyclopedia. I only say this since you do not seem very indifferent to nationality, judging from your Userpage. DIREKTOR 01:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Direktor, this, what you've written now, is discrediting of the user, which is forbidden behaviour on Wikipedia. Kubura 10:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to threw ash on myself this time. "Level-headed" is not the same thing as "narrow-minded". Sorry, Direktor. Kubura 07:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should check this out: User_talk:Isotope23, User:No.13 is spreading propaganda!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.181.111.17 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 31 July 2007

May I know why exactly are you reverting my edits and give obvious support to known edit warriors and disruptors? Stop doing that. --No.13 06:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn, why have you made a revert on the article Jakov Mikalja?
I've given my sources on the talkpage (with scanned historical books!), many other users also, we've also tried to talk with the opposing side. On the other hand, the "opposing side" (Giovanni Giove & Co.) persistently ignored wikipedia's rules!
We've asked him to give counterarguments, which he failed to do (all actions of the opposers were direct changing of the article, all his discussions on the talk page were "you're a vandal", "I've given my sources", "my changes are referenced", without ever discussing it with others.
Why have you engaged in a revert, without explaining your action?
Have you read the discussion on the talkpage, or the messages of other users sent to the opposing side on their talkpages?
You cannot fell down like a parachutist out of nowhere and make such reverts, especially with the articles that had heavy confrontations.
How can you call someone's contributions as "ethnic POV-pushing" (which is a heavy discreditation), without reading what was going on whole the time?
That, what you've done, was siding with known trol, edit-warrior, edit-slayers and wiki-disruptor (after 70 of his ignoring-contributions, I allow myself to say so). That's not good for your wiki-reputation. Kubura 11:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he promotes the tito yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria.

Of course, these are lies and misinformation. The person who writes this wrote on my talkpage he believes, and I quote, "...the Fascist Italy was GREAT!" (note the emphasis). Just because he lied in advance does not mean he is not their sympathiser. At the very least he is an irredentist believing borders should be redrawn in Croatia and Slovenia, I hope you will not allow yourself to be biased by these people... DIREKTOR 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allied occupation of Europe, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Allied occupation of Europe satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Allied occupation of Europe during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Digwuren 01:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:Allied occupation of Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Digwuren 01:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are strongly favoring a strange-looking association between the First Swedish Crusade and the transfer of Sergius of Valaam's bones in the article about the latter. To me this looks odd, but I am interested in your opinions behind it. Kindly comment that on the article's talk page, thank you. --Drieakko 09:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found Vladimir Putin's take on the occupation theory:

“

If the Baltic states had already been absorbed into the Soviet Union in 1939, then the Soviet Union could not occupy them in 1945 because they had already become part of its territory... As I see it, in 1918, Russia and Germany concluded a deal that was sealed in the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, under which Russia handed over part of its territories to German control. This marked the beginning of Estonian statehood. In 1939, Russia and Germany concluded another deal and Germany handed these territories back to Russia. In 1939, they were absorbed into the Soviet Union. Let us not talk now about whether this was good or bad. This is part of history. I think that this was a deal, and small countries and small nations were the bargaining chips in this deal. Regrettably, such was the reality of those times, just as there was the reality of European countries’ colonial past, or the use of slave labour in the United States. But today, are we, day after day, to allow the ghosts of the past to seize us by the hands and prevent us from moving forward?

”

Since this looks like Russia's official position on the subject, it might be helpful to include this quote in the relevant Wikipedia pages. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some dispute about whether the Scorpion and Thresher sinkings should be referenced in Nuclear marine propulsion's list of "naval nuclear accidents." I've posted on the talk page requesting some discussion on that point. If you're interested, could you please drop by and post your rationale for keeping or deleting those list entries?

I'm particularly interested in your view on this as you recently reverted an edit removing them from the list. Thanks. Rem01 02:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terve, kirjoitan englanniksi jos muut haluaisivat ymmärtää :) Regarding the dispute over Transnistria, you made a claim that somewhat surprised me: "From Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view it is not part of Moldova: What is NPOV, is that Moldova has an irredentist claim on Transnistria." If this claim had been made by some of the other contributors on the page, I would have brushed it off as uninformed nationalism, but having come across you many times I know very well that you're not uninformed and I rather doubt that you're a Transnistrian nationalist. ;) I take it you are aware that not one country in the world recognises Transnistria as anything but a part of Moldova. This is also the position of both the EU and the UN. What you're saying, then, is that Wikipedia has got its very own definitions of recognising countries. In my experience, that is not the case and should not be the case. If some countries and organisations recognise a country and others don't, the situation is more tricky, but while both the UN and all other organisations agree that Transnistria is part of Moldova, the NPOV view is that that is the case. At the very least I would want some very strong evidence for why Wikipedia should invent its very own states. JdeJ 08:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I heard that you are working as disinformation officer, and getting payd for adding false information to wikipedia. I have large family, and we have very low income, could you please let me know if and how I could join the team? Let me know by e-mail suva ät linux dhot ee. Thank you. Suva 08:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:GoldStarOfTheHeroOfTheSovietUnion.jpg

You asked me: "Is there any WP:RS that does not consider the war a war of aggression? The fi:Ajopuuteoria sunk 50 years ago!"

I'm afraid I can't read Finnish. I can read Swedish, though, and I think "ajopuuteoria" is what is in Swedish called "drivvedsteorin", i.e. the theory that Finland "drifted" towards war with the Soviet Union in 1941. Now, before I get to your actual question, I'd like to see if we can agree on some things. I think the following are historical facts not in dispute, please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these.

• Finland had prepared for a possible future war with the Soviet Union. These preparations were conducted with Germany and included plans for a possible Finnish offensive.

• In June 1941, there were German forces in Finland. Those German forces made use of Finnish facilities in the opening days of Operation Barbarossa but no land forces opened fire or crossed the border. Mines were laid both by Finnish and German ships.

• The Soviet Union made bomber raids on Finland.

• Before the Soviet bomber raids, Finland had declared that it would not participate in the war. After the raids the Finnish government declared that it was once again at war with the Soviet Union.

• Finnish and German forces launched an offensive from Finland into the Soviet Union. They retook the territories lost in 1940 and then some more.

So, getting to your question. "Is there any WP:RS that does not consider the war a war of aggression?" I don't know. I don't have any RS saying: "The Continuation War was not a Finnish war of aggression." Nor do I have any RS saying: "The Continuation War was a Finnish war of aggression." Do you? I think most reliable sources would tend to give the facts (like those above) and have the readers draw their own conclusions. I'm holding the four volume "Meinander, Henrik (1999). Finlands Historia. ISBN 951-50-0883-2" in my hands. On page 228 of volume 4 there is a section discussing the nature of the Continuation War. It has the heading "Försvarskamp eller vedergällning?" The book asks the question but never comes out and answers it one way or another. It starts with quoting Ryti's speeches, where he bills the war as a defensive one ("denna vår andra försvarskamp"). It then discusses the cooperation with the Germans, Mannerheim's Sword Scabbard Declaration and the debate within Finland on what to do with eastern Karelia. But the book never gives any conclusion as to whether it was a war of aggression or not. When discussing the trials the situation is much the same. The text certainly gives a lot of space to the view that it was politically motivated theater. "Endast yttervänstern uttryckte sin belåtenhet med rättegången, men trots att den övriga befolkningen hyste starka aversioner mot hela skådespelet svaldes den bittra kalken med behärskning." (page 281) Or take this quote from the same page: "Vinterkrigets förhistoria och den militära ledningens ansvar fick inte diskuteras ingående, vilket naturligtvis ställde stora krav både på åklagaren och de svarende. Något tillspetsat gällde det att diskutera ett skådespel utan att nämna vare sig dess första akt eller dess huvudperson."

In conclusion, I'm saying is that Wikipedia should describe things in a similar way to Meinander's work and not proclaim the nature of the Continuation War as a fact one way or the other. Haukur 14:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for this edit.[25] I mistakenly edited an old version of the article -- Patleahy (talk) 00:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Me and Mackensen have answered your checkuser request. Sorry it took 14 days. Hopefully we can reduce that backlog a bit. --Deskana (banana) 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you know when sections of the Finnish part were electrified, when exactly various stations were opened and what minor stations between Kouvola and Vainikkala are there? Thanks. Colchicum 23:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted your impractical and apparently uncivil redirect WP:The stuff I and my friends have been doing and getting away with, because we intimidated all our opposition into backing down from edit-warring about it. If you feel this was incorrect, take it to WP:DRV. Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, your edit may be fact, but the reference is a blog which does not conform to the WP:RS guideline. I have reverted it. --Fahrenheit451 01:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, I see that you are fluent in Suomi, but most readers of english wikipedia are not, so the effi.org website article cannot be cited. I removed it.--Fahrenheit451 02:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbey was referred to in the text. I've fixed the problem.--Amandajm 10:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see you fixing the problem, all you have done is reverted my edit. I do not thing this image of a Romanesque trancept adds to the article. It does not depict how the Cluny Abbey was a "formula for a well planned monastic site". If the image is used at all, it should be clearly marked as Romanesque and not Gothic architecture. -- Petri Krohn 10:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't simply revert your edit. I added another sentence to the caption clearly labelling the building as Romanesque. As a creative editor, your solution might be to replace it with a really good well- captioned picture of a Gothic monastery. However, as you are probably aware, the influence of Cluny was enormous and continued well into the Gothic period.

--Amandajm 10:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your edit summary said you had undone my edit :-( I restored the image with a new caption :-) -- Petri Krohn 11:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah let's go with that! --Amandajm 13:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the merge tags you placed on this article, since you didn't bother to explain your rationale on the talk page of either article. Feel free to re-add the tags, but only after you explain your reasoning on the relevant talk page. Wibbble 23:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy discussing the {{Infobox Former Country}} on Saxony (disambiguation)? What are your particular objections to it? Are there any ways in which I could restore the infobox without it causing you problems? Just reverting it with no comment anywhere isn't exactly polite, after all; is there a compromise solution we could reach? — OwenBlacker 08:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things you've said and done are being used against you at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Petri Krohn has engaged in extremely disruptive conduct regarding articles concerning Estonian-Russian relations. Digwuren 19:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Proposed decision#Petri Krohn. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 07:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, the link you added goes to a biographical page rather than a topic article. Could you please explain your rationale for this?--Fahrenheit451 21:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Copyfraud was split from Kai Puolamäki by User:Ptkfgs on 7 August 2007. (dif). Originally I included both Kai Puolamäki and Copyright commandeering (now Copyfraud) in the same article. Because the term is a neologism I did not think that it would merit an independent article at the time. The term Copyfraud, launched at about the same time, has now become well established.

fi:Tekijänoikeuskaappaus is a translation of Copyright commandeering (or more likely the other way around). If you think that fi:Tekijänoikeuskaappaus should not redirect to fi:Kai Puolamäki, you have to make that argument at the Finnish Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 00:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving me the history of that link. I am not capable of making any arguments on the Finnish Wikipedia, however, I think it is improper for a link on the English Wikipedia to go to a biographical article rather than a topic article. Therefore, I would like to remove that link.--Fahrenheit451 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that our mutual friend has again been trying to blank the category, by deleting any link to it from virtually any article. After coming back from a wiki break, I have restored two links I remember very well. Is there any way at all to find out what articles were in that category befrore he went on his second rampage, so that I may have a look and restore whatever necessary?--Pan Gerwazy 09:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of potential articles in Category talk:Allied occupation of Europe. Most of the others are included in the subcategory Category:Allied occupation of Germany, and Category:Soviet occupation. The later cat COULD also be a subcat (or it could be renamed). -- Petri Krohn 12:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to think that "Allied Occupation of Europe" covers three things: 1) the joint allied occupation of Austria and Germany which should also include the Trieste situation and the failed attempt at Texel 2) the occupation by the UK and US of territories such as Faroe, Iceland and Greenland to stop them from falling in German hands 3) the POV of people like Leopold III of Belgium (and 57% of the Belgian population in 1950) that their country was occupied and not liberated (in the case of Leopold, that was based on the neutrality acts of 1830 and 1838) So we may actually need three subcats instead of one of three. (I agree that it may be difficult to find articles with the last POV, but I seem to remember that at the time of the contention over the American cruise missiles some Flemish nationalists claimed that Leopold III was right, after all)

There are some interesting juridical questions here: French troops (Niemen-Normandie) were fighting on the side of the Red Army in Eastern Europe, and though for ovbvious reasons, the Soviet Army concentrated the "French" planes in the North, they were definitely part of the force occupying East Prussia, Poland and East Germany. Basically, that means that wheteher you call that legally, there is no doubt that these three occupations/liberations are indeed part of "allied" occupation, and not purely Soviet. Another French point: Oran, Algiers and Constantine were French overseas departments (they sent deputies to the French parliament). According to present EU rules, that means they were part of Europe. So, articles on operation Torch may also belong in the category. I hope no nut will suggest (although with that usual bunch of meatpuppetes you will never know) that they belong in "Allied liberation of Northern Africa" instead ... --Pan Gerwazy 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to keep #wikipedia open at all times, because it's the place where your blocks have been engineered by your "friends". It is a first-rate vehicle for block shopping, which does not allow the accused to say anything in his defence, and they know and appreciate that. You may be sure that each diff of your edits is examined there, accompanied with inappropriate and misleading comments. There are IRC clients that will notify you once your name (or some other key word) is mentioned. I am told the option is pretty useful for detecting a witch-hunt when it's going on behind the scenes. Take care, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Moderated nuclear explosion. Ewlyahoocom 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted. I have substantial experience in nuclear power, and this article is clearly not well informed. It strikes me as trying to have some sort of political spin, but in any case it is not good physics and reflects poorly on Wikipedia.--24.28.6.209 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article about Holy Roman Empire is based on some at least inaccurate information. There is continuous critics about the article Kingdom of Germany which did not exist until 1871 but even it existed it was not what HRE was. Also the term first reich', please read the article German Empire specifically German_Empire#Name. Holy Roman Empire was not a monarchy it was a conglomerate of various lands and countries across the medieval Europe based mainly on the clerical principles and as a counterbalance against France on the west and Turkey on the east. My edits are based mainly on the interwiki from German version which is very good and featured. Best regards and happy editing. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 08:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What worries me most in your edits is that you have marked all your major edits and deletions as "minor". -- Petri Krohn 22:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm well, not everything is all the time perfect :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated nuclear explosion, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Moderated nuclear explosion satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderated nuclear explosion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Moderated nuclear explosion during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 08:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if you really want the page kept, you better replace your vote with some real reasons why you think the page should be kept. Even if it were bad faith nomination, which I honestly can say it was not, comments in style "bad faith nomination" usually are not counted. I recommend you to propose rename to something more googleable, and find better sources. I fail to see the "political agenda" as proposed by the anonymous editor, but the page seems original research to me. Thanks. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 12:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Petri, you are an editor who has been here a fair time and you know your way around the place. Can you provide a reasonable explanation for why you decided to write this hoax article? Such actions are particularly reprehensible when coming from longstanding editors and is essentially vandalism. Eusebeus 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• That kind of section division is not a good idea. Anyone can clearly see the latest messages. That kind of division by ones likes is often frowned upon. And as of the article. You still haven't addressed WP:NN and WP:V. Suva Чего? 23:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, now it is much better, though I doubt that the Chernobyl disaster can be called (moderated) nuclear explosion. It requires advanced technology to make something explode rather than disintegrate (though the distinction is a matter of degree in a sense). It is unbelievable that an explosion could ever happen by accident. Colchicum 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Petri. Sorry about the AfD. Now I noticed this:[26]. All of this "evidence" hinges on whetehr Digwuren was a new account:

• "This is not a definite refutation, but if they were recruited by Digwuren, how did he have the foresight to get one of his friends to join first?"
• All (=all edits) are fully justifiable, and even though they constitute a violation of WP:3RR, a newcomer would not be aware of this rule and one can assume the reverts were made with the best of intentions (i.e. improving wikipedia) as per WP:AGF.

I seem to remember that Digwuren once acknowledged that he was not a new contributor, but I cannot find the reference. Any idea when he said that? Thanks in advance. --Pan Gerwazy 12:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was probably me who said I am not a new contributor. You are probably confusing us. Suva Чего? 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Finnish Air Force - Fokker F27.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please opine on these claims? What was your reaction to Digwuren's stalking? Have you continued editing Estonia-related topics to this day? --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Reardon is not a "good-faith" editor. He is a tendentitious editor who continually attempts to insert anti-HOA bias into the Homeowners' Association article, justifying his edits with citations from left-wing advocacy groups and anti-business regulatory agencies. Argyriou (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[27]

I fully understand that you do not really want to interact with the Digwuren bunch anymore, but seeing that the diffs quoted to prove you are an edit warrior refer to two pages, and that a perfectly normal statement on Jimbo Wales' page is taken as evidence of personal attacks, maybe you should reconsider your inactivity - or at least explain the inactivity. In any case you are not editing that corner of Wikipedia anymore, so Newyorkbrad's intervention ([28]) definitely applies to you. --Pan Gerwazy 14:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While Petri Krohn has received a duly sanctioned ban, he should not be subjected to any further punishment. His user page has been blanked and substituted with a template informing everyone of the ban he has received. [29] In my opinion, this constitutes a violation of Wikipedia:Banning policy#Dealings with banned users. The policy expressly notes: "Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users or take advantage of their ban to mock them." I fail to see how blanking the user's page serves this purpose. In fact, the user page, with its multiple merits, should show that no user is immune to the bans sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee, regardless of good editing, if they break the rules of civility. With this basis, I revert the edit made by Cbrown1023, adding the ban template on the top of the page. --MPorciusCato 12:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-blanked the page. This is common practice, and makes the user page a lot more clear. If he once returns, he can revert the edits, but for now on, he won't be needing it. Now when someone enters the user page, he clearly sees Petri Krohn was a disruptive edit-warrer using Wikipedia as a battleground, and nothing more. --Pudeo⺮ 13:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have disagreed with Petri Krohn previously, so I am not his fan, but I still think that blanking a user's page is not merited by the policies. Neither Banning policy nor User page guideline give administrators authority to blank user pages that do not have inappropriate content.Actually, they do. I made a mistake --MPorciusCato 16:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) The purpose of bans is not to shame the person but to give them time to repent and to reflect their past deeds. Petri Krohn was deemed guilty of being a disruptive edit warrer, but he did get several barnstars for actual merits and contributed meaningfully outside controversial topics. Those merits are not annulled by the ArbCom decision, nor does the ArbCom decision require blanking the banned users' pages. --MPorciusCato 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is of course free to unblank it once the ban expires or is removed, I just did this because it is common practice, no offense intended. Cbrown1023 talk 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Nokia 2110i, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Nokia 2110i is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Nokia 2110i, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 13:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected assassinations has been nominated for deletion; you are invited to participate in the discussion located here. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ronn Torossian, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronn Torossian. Thank you. --Atavi 10:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri - I have removed your redirect from Finnish Dorset to Finnsheep. A Finnish Dorset not a Finnsheep, but is instead a crossbreed between a Finnsheep and a Dorset Sheep. I have started a new sheep breed stub on the Finnish Dorset page. DruidSmith 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]