User talk:Petri Krohn

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Petri Krohn, welcome to Wikipedia!

I noticed your edits to Battle of New Orleans (2005) and the new page Free-fire zone, thanks for your contributions. You look like you know what you're up to, but just in case, you might like some of these links and tips:

• Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
• Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page
• Be bold
• Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alf ^melmac 01:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC).

Wikipedians in Finland

I added [[Category:Wikipedians in Finland]] to your user page, if you prefer it without, please feel free to remove it. Alf ^melmac

Image:Navy-KatrinaNationalGuardTruck.jpg

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. (SEWilco 20:27, 12 September 2005 (UTC))

I think he might have better phrased that to say; "Only use the talk pages for talking about images or articles, please" and "I have removed your comments as there were cluttering up the page with stuff that shouldn't be there". Alf ^melmac 21:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Main battle tanks

Hello, Petri! Thanks for helping with improving the article battleship. A few pointers, though:

When listing "See also"-links, you're supposed to link to the actual title of the articles. Main Battle Tank is just a redirect to tank, not an article on it's own. If you read the article, you'll see that the military concept of the MBT is covered within that article. You only use the format [[actual name|alternative name]] when describing something in article prose.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Tank#Main Battle Tank vs. Battleship -- Petri Krohn 19:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, your stance is garnering very little support because it's based on some misconceptions on what the overall objective of any encyclopedia. It's the topic of the article that should dictate content, not the other way around. As for battleship, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#"See also" and "Related topics" sections and look at just about any other article to see that this is not what these sections are for.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Petri, please stop adding "See also"-links that are redirects to other articles. Use the actual article titles if you want to link somewhere or simply don't link at all.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Lincoln Cathedral

Hi I think the picture would be better described as from the West, as the photographer is to the West of the Cathedral. --John 11:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Watershed

Hello. Just curious, why did you add the portage link to the watershed article? Thanks. Kiaparowits 18:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Kiitos kaunis.

Kiitos tosiaankin. Olen ajoittain harkinnut että joku joka hallitsee kaikki lelut ja vimpaimet, tekisi minulle oikein tyylikkään käyttäjäsivun, mutta se on aina viivähtänyt vetkutteluun. Ehkä joskus sitten kun on jotain tärkeämpää mitä vetkutella sen sijasta. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 12:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

"Post Soviet times" in article Winter War

Your subtitle "Post Soviet times" and rewroting "to remove POV" was not very good edit. Sadly, your own edit was very POV and irrelevant in article of Winter War. There is already an article of Karelia question and in Finnish wiki it is peer-reviewed and rather good: fi:Karjala-kysymys.

Teit muokkauksen, jolla yritit poistaa POVia. Tässä vain ei ollut mitään POVia: "After the war, the Karjalan liitto started to work for the Karelia question." Ennemminkin lisäyksesi oli vahvasti värittynyt "[question] has clogged many Internet discussion groups and forums (including Wikipedia)." Palautin tekstin siitä, että Karjalan liitto alkoi työskennellä Karjala-kysymyksen hyväksi. Karjalan luovutus talvisodassa johti Karjalan liiton perustamiseen, jonka tavoitteisiin on sen omien sanojensa mukaan aina sisältynyt Karjalan palautus. Kommentoin eli piilotin pov-tekstisi, koska se ei oikein liity talvisotaan vaan enemmänkin artikkeliin Karjala-kysymys. Ja sittenkin vain korjattuna, koska se sisälsi virheellistä tietoa (korjasin sen). Kahkonen 12:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved discussion to the article talk page. -- Petri Krohn 23:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

peter minuit

Please add a source for the storm you added to 1620-1639 Atlantic hurricane seasons. — jdorje (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is the Peter Minuit article itself. -- Petri Krohn 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is another source: [1] -- Petri Krohn 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Åbo Kungliga Akademi

Greetings! I noticed that you share an interest with the article concerning the above institution. 1. Sorry, for not knowing how to use "move". 2. Please, let's finally discuss the matter in the discussion page of the article "Academy of Åbo" where I've started a thread already a few days ago (and not had any comments from you or anyone). Clarifer 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Red links

Hi Petri, Please don't add links to non exstant topics. Make the page first then link to it. Thanks --DV8 2XL 02:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Huemul Project

1. What do you mean by <<the Argnetinian secret research project on nuclear fission in 1949.>>?
2. You took off the nuclear fusion category from the Huemul Project article stating that it is not physics.
3. Now do you mean Huemul was fission, rather than fusion, and fission is not physics?
4. Shouldn't the date be an interval rather than a single year?

Please, clarify and/or correct Jclerman 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Responce

1. I suppose the projecty was secret. Do you disagree?

No.

1. I did not remove this or any other category from the Huemul Project article. I removed the link to Huemul Project from the See also section in the article Nuclear fusion. You are welcome to reintroduce it, but I would not advice puting it on the first place.

Please re-introduce it, and do it in the place you deem correct. I'm not going to change it.

1. The Huemul Project did not or could not have achived fusion nor fission. The article is interesting from the historical point of view but has little value from the pure physics point of view.

That is IYHO, not in the humble opinion of others who are reviewing the physics and political background of the project in the international literature.

I understand that the Nuclear fusion article is about physics, not about history.

History, especially in relationship with nuclear research, is in the humble understanding of others, important as not to repeat similar mistakes, e.g., re proliferation.

1. I corrected the year 1948 to 1949 in the Nahuel Huapi National Park article. I do not know how long the Huemul facility oprated, so I can not add an end year.

The project was terminated in 1952. The online links to the articles in Physics Today refer to it.

• MORE about the project:

It was intended to produce fusion and you have been referring to it as fission in many articles. As you should remember in which ones, please change it back to the appropriate term.

Jclerman 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Guigue/sandbox

I think it is time to move User:Guigue/sandbox to Huemul Project.

Petri Krohn 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the authors can make such decision. The article will be a composite by several contributors. Frequent vandalism in the article page required we work in a sandbox. Jclerman 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Gay bathhouse

Please stop italicising the long quotes in this article. Quotes do not need to be--indeed, should not be--italicized. Blockquotes are formatted so that they stand out from the rest of the text anyway. Italics are used for specific purposes; this is not one of them. Exploding Boy 16:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

zero-point energy

Please do not place merge tags on random pages unless you can articulate clear reasons why said articles should be merged. As they appear to be on distinct topics, I see no reason to merge them. 00:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to Talk:Zero-point energy. Petri Krohn 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gravitoelectromagnetism

it's been discussed multiple times and the only objector was User:Nixer who got his way only because he was stubborn. User:Hillman (a.k.a. Chris Hillman, well known physicist) had asked for that changed long ago (it was on the Todo: list) and i did it for him which started a move/revert war with Nixer. i made my explanation in the Talk page, you should have read it. please talk to people before reverting something like this (a reform). Rbj 23:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I am a mathematician by training, not a physicist. GEM (gravitoelectromagnetism) is mainstream; gravitomagnetism is part of gravitoelectromagnetism. Its a sexy part, which partially explains why the term gravitomagnetism is more commonly encountered in the literature than the term gravitoelectromagnetism, but any physicist in this area would recognize that gravitomagnetism is part of GEM and that GEM is mainstream physics. (See the review articles I cited.) OTH, there are many cranky notions out there to the effect that electromagnetism (as in Maxwell and Faraday) and gravitation are the same thing, and these and related notions like anti-gravity and gravity shielding are definitely not mainstream. I had hoped to clarify all this in terms laypersons could understand, but now I have decided instead to disengage from WP article space (too much time spend on arguing with cranks). ---CH 04:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Alco HH series

I have removed your subheading since I don't see that the specifications of that particular locomotive and no others deserve a separate section. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is important and encyclopedic. The ALCO HH series is central in the development of diesel-electric technology, an area that is otherwise very poorly covered in Wikipedia. I added several links to the Alco HH series article from other related articles.

If you feel that it is wrong to have a subtitle on technology in the 600 section (when other models do not have equal detail on technology), then it is better to move "Diesel-electric power transmission" into its own section. I considered this, but it would break the current structure of the article.

On a general point, I think this article, (like many other railways articles) may be turning into a vanity article with too much detail on individual locomotives. Nothing bad with that, but if it prevents bringing up really relevant information, then it is a bad thing. Petri Krohn 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moving discussion to Talk:ALCO HH series Petri Krohn 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) )

Vorkuta

Thanks for the help. The comparison with the slogan at the Nazi camps is entirely frivolous as explained at talk. Regards, --Irpen 04:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazi POV?! I beg your pardon? It's nice Irpen made you join the revert war, perhaps I'll be able to make you join the talk page as well, as this is what Irpen and other revert warriors should do as well. //Halibutt 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

All right, I will not call you names in exchange. But be sure to read WP:CIVIL the next time you call someone a Nazi. //Halibutt 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, stop spreading lies. Other users had been at talk all along. And please add the accusiation of lieing to your userpage. The list is incomplete. --Irpen 19:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Marine biology

Please note that I did not remove Rachel Carson from the list of famous biologiest, as I only moved the registration to the correct alphabetic position. ---Arnejohs 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Civil disturbances and military action in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

Why did you revert these links? Without an explanation, I'm not sure of your reasoning. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 02:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove them in the first place? -- Petri Krohn 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's listed in the edit summary — WP:NOT a collection of links; I removed ones that didn't fit WP:EL. Now, your turn. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm terribly sorry about accidentally reverting your picture caption edit at Ayn Rand. It was sandwiched between vandalism and I was in a rush and didn't notice the legitimate and helpful edit. Thank you for your work on the page. --Wilanthule 21:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:-) -- Petri Krohn 22:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Bypassing redirects

It looks like consensus recently emerged in January not to do this. I apologize, as I wasn't aware of this. —Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, no harm done :-) -- Petri Krohn 12:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Consensus? Where? It was my understanding that redirects are to be avoided when linking to a page. Powers 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

(Moved discussion to Talk:Water planet -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Huh, are you a troll?

Judging by your yesterday's redirect spree, I assumed you came here mainly to disrupt. Now I tend to make allowances for your not being sufficiently acquainted with how WP works. You should know that forks are not allowed here. Just like Tommiks who created the fork, you failed to explain what Chigirin campaigns and WWI have in common. I can't see new stuff that you contributed on the subject, apart from introducing incomprehensible mess with redirects. Those whose edits are limited to disrupting redirects, may be qualified as trolls and banned from editing Wikipedia. If you continue your disruptive campaigning, I'll have to ask other editors to comment on your behaviour. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I may suggest a similar arena for your activity. Why not delete links to Russo-Swedish War the way you delete links to Russo-Turkish War and merge all the articles on individual Russo-Swedish wars into a gigantic hodge-podge fork on the model of History of Russo-Turkish wars, spruce it up with POV statements and incomprehensible tables and then accuse your opponents of "anti-Swedish POV"? Please be consistent in your editing policy. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on AFD

comment deleting the Rushton's ordering of the human races article will leave the all the material intact in the J. Philippe Rushton article, and I suggest cannot therefore be characterized as censorship (should this be what you are implying), but will instead collect all the views pro and con in one article, where readers can evaluate this notable theory. - Best Regards, Pete.Hurd 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry Portal?

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva ^db 13:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Death of Hiltler

The original said that she was alive when she was dead. I thought that was a bad idea...Rich Farmbrough 18:14 13 May 2006 (UTC).

Please annote pertinent'S' with reasons and reasoning

Hi! Please be careful to document such 'Ugly' things for the sake of the rest of, (and due respect for) 'us' and our free time!

re: [User talk:Petri Krohn] placed Mergetags: ({{mergefrom|Old Saxony}}) 12:14, 20 March 2006

Best wishes, FrankB 22:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You might

Look at San Stefano Treaty and other articles related to Russian Empire, many of them contain Imperial Russian bias. --Molobo 14:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ingrian map

There is some discussion at fi:Keskustelu_käyttäjästä:Inzulac#Inkerin_kartta that might interest you. -- Jniemenmaa 07:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Collegiate church in Tum

I hope this picture will explain all doubts about which stone has been used to build Collegiate church in Tum --Tlumaczek 12:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"slanderous"?

Why is it slanderous? PMA 23:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bob_McEwen

I agree with what you've said here and especially enjoyed your "Did You Know?" section. Thanks for the laugh! — GT 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Great Northern War and Great Northern War and Norway

Copied from Williamborg talk page: I reverted your copy-paste edits on the Great Northern War. If you want to merge this article with Great Northern War and Norway dicuss it first. -- Petri Krohn 03:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Intrigued that you elected to revert without either looking at the discussion page or pausing to discuss there.

Cheers - Williamborg 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Landlocked Russia

Hi there! I've restored your work in progress and placed it in User:Petri Krohn/sandbox. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 15:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Operation barbarossa

I am not sure why you are linking the reinforcement of the Moscow armies with the Battle of Khalkin-Gol article. The Manchurian battle took place in 1939 and has no real connection to the defense of Moscow in Dec 1941. Whether the units involved were the same divisions or not, it seems to me that it merely leads the reader to a dead-end that is not particularly relevant. Is there some reason I am not seeing for including this in the article? DMorpheus 16:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Castle Village floor plan.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Castle Village floor plan.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigismund III Vasa

Hiya, thanks for the note. And yes, I was worried about that too. My project involved trying to choose a consistent name for the monarch on hundreds of articles, so I was going through with an automated tool and trying to "eyeball" the changes it was suggesting on each article. I tried to be sensitive to the Swedish issue and redirect/disambiguate carefully on those articles, but it looks like I may have missed a couple spots. There were just soooo many different ways that this monarch was referred to! Please feel free to adjust those as you see fit, or pass along the article titles to me and I'll go in and fix them myself. I apologize for any confusion. --Elonka 16:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

re Virtuoso Universal Server

Wow, thanks for the shoutout, I'm glad it all worked... I'm a new admin and I was worried that I was bollixing it up worse... whew. Herostratus 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your article, SS Rajputana, was selected for DYK!

On July 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Rajputana, which you created. 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! ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-German deletionist"

I am not "anti-German". I live in Germany and am married to a German. You need to read Wikipedia:No original research and understand why your personal hypothesis has no place in a Wikipedia article. User:Angr 14:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Terrorist disambig

I'm afraid I can't remember as it was so long ago, but it was unprotected four months ago, so I'm not clear about the reason for your query. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gustaf Nordenskiöld the villian?

1. I am not anonymous User:69.39.6.253.
2. Your text seems to imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld was guilty of some kind of unethical conduct. Saying "recognized as valuable" only means that his possitive actions outweight the negative. It does not rehabilitate him from the earlier, most likely unfounded critisism. Unless you can provide modern scientific sources critical of Nordenskiöld, I find your wording a form of slander.

I started a thread at Talk:Mesa Verde National Park. -- Petri Krohn 23:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And I responded there. Slander? -- remember, Wiki requires no original research and information here originates from other sources. Lots of historical information is critical of Nordenskiöld, and lots of modern archaeologists are critical of the methods and outlook of pioneer archaeologists. He may be a "hero" to some -- but should be presented fairly evenhandedly here. I believe his article is the best place to discuss his historic actions and reputation, and that a summary is best for the Park article. Best wishes, despite your accusation. WBardwin 23:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity Link

Why did I remove it? Please see this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brighton&curid=696314&diff=69640005&oldid=69629833#External_link_to_.22www.heureka.clara.net.2Fsussex.2Fbrighton.htm.22 for why. The author of the site being linked to is the person who is adding these external links. Furthermore, they are using sockpuppets to create an illusion of popularity about these links and are being very aggressive on talk pages. Gsd2000 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sisu XA-180 Lebanon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sisu XA-180 Lebanon.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Simca articles

Petri, thank you for your interest in Simca- and Ford France-related articles! I would like to invite you to contribute to them, which I see you have already started. Seeing that you are from Finland, I believe you could help the Wikipedia users find out more about the Simcas and other Chrysler Europe cars assembled in Finland, as well as gain access to information contained in the really rich automotive sources in Finnish! I am looking forward to your contributions, Bravada, talk - 17:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Boston Tea Party

Howdy, I noticed that you and I seem to post in one or two articles dealing with progressive issues in political science/sociology. There's currently a debate beginning in Boston Tea Party as to whether the article should include the category [2]. It meets definitions set in the articles Terrorism and Definition of terrorism, however, there are several self-proclaimed patriots who watch BTP who refuse to recognise the fact. The simple criteria for terrorism generally seem to be intimidation or destruction of property in order to change public policy or public opinion while a state of war has not yet been declared. Some users would rather use recent acts of terrorism as a yardstick, rather than using a firm definition, and hence lose their ability to discuss matters calmly. Would you be able to pop in to the Talk page and join in the discussion? Thanks much, samwaltz 05:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Gothic Survival

Hi there Petre. Currently the Gothic Survival page redirects to European medieval architecture in North America. I'm not sure it should, really it should be an article in it's own right to describe the continuity of some Gothic building traditions that extended, in some cases well into the C17 in such places as Oxford. See Curl, James Stevens. A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (Second ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 880. ISBN 0198606788. {{cite book}}: |format= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |accessyear=, |origmonth=, |accessmonth=, |month=, |chapterurl=, and |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help). I intend to change it after receiving comments - can you cite any sources that might be useful for me in disambiguating the term to European medieval architecture in North America? ie. Is it called the Gothic Survival in the US?--Mcginnly | Natter 12:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

List of HSC ferry routes

Good call. I created the original list as a split from Catamaran where it no longer belonged and you have taken it to the stage it needs to be. Will you be defining in the talk page how a route qualifies as "High Speed"? Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

History of CIA-sponsored regime change

Hey. Just out of curiosity, before I go to AfD, what part of "redundant to material elsewhere, POV fork, useless as a redirect" did you actually disagree with? 13:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

World War II

It can be said that Soviet troops liberated E. Europe (from the Nazis) before the end of the war but explain how they did that in the aftermath when E. Europe was still under their occupation. You seem to have an extreme pro-Soviet POV. Your claim that Americans prevented Communists in W. Europe from getting power is an overstatement. That was done more by European voters and governments than by Americans.--Kelstonian 15:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I don't think you have too much to worry about. There are plenty of people who will make sure that the Soviets get a fair go, just as there are those who will look after other countries, such as Germany and the United States. However, you are correct to point out if you think there is a problem. This will also be noted by other contributors. Most of us like an even handed approach, and don't like propaganda. So if someone else such as the Kelstonian thinks you have an "extreme pro-Soviet POV", then that is only his view, and not necessarily the view of others. Wallie 18:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Petri, you're not de-POVing the article. You're pushing your POV that what the Soviet Union was for E. Europe, USA was for W. Europe. Your POV isn't supported by facts and that's why you repeatedly resort to falsehoods like your claim that Americans prevented Communists from attempting to get power in W. Europe. W. European countries were mostly democracies and far more independent and stronger than the Soviet allies or satellites, whatever you want to call them. Trying to equate Soviet and American influence in Eastern and Western Europe, respectively, isn't de-POVing or increasing neutrality. It's simply pushing a POV not supported by facts.--Kelstonian 02:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Grand Portage

Hello PK. I have made an effort to combine our respective contributions to the introduction to this article. Let me know if this is acceptable. If revisions are proposed let's discuss them at Talk:Grand Portage National Monument. Thank you. Kablammo 01:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Port Arthur

I have posted a revised version of the Siege of Port Arthur to User:MChew/Siege of Port Arthur, which I believe addresses your copyvio concerns. I would be grateful if you could take a look and comment. MChew

DYK

On 12 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 14 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Weston Patton, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Talk:Jacob De la Gardie

Responding to your comment on my talkpage: No, my removal of text from Talk:Jacob De la Gardie was entirely intentional and it was explained in the edit summary ("we don't need this in duplicate, it is already in the section lower down on the page"). The text I removed was a duplicate of what is in the section below. The editor who wrote it is the now infamous Kven editor who fills articles with unhistorical nonsense.

To give you some background, the text I removed was posted by 213.139.188.26 (talk · contribs) in response to something I had posted at User talk:Mikkalai. The user also posted the exact same text at User talk:Mikkalai below my comment. At Talk:Jacob De la Gardie the comment was addressed to me but completely lacked the context of the original comment. In order to restore the context, I moved my comment together with the response of 213.139.188.26 (talk · contribs) to Talk:Jacob De la Gardie, where it belonged topically, and responded to it there. The result was that the identical comment by 213.139.188.26 appeared in two places on the page. My removal of one copy of the same comment was just fixing that. As noted in the edit summary. Tupsharru 23:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment warning

Stop pestering Tupsharru or you will face a block from editing. He is perfectly entitled to remove your quarrelsomeness from his page. Don't edit war over what people choose to keep or remove on their pages. Note also that it is inappropriate and offensive to "warn" established users by means of templates intended for anonymous vandals; please use human language for communication. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 02:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC).