User talk:Petri Krohn: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:37, 25 June 2011

I may sometimes break all rules and take very bold actions, normally only reserved for administrators. This is done under the following assumptions.

I believe that the action to be taken receives unanimous support.
I will undo any action if I am explicitly asked to do so.
General sounds of displeasure do not count as a request to undo.

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

Archives

2005 - 2006 - 2007 - 2008 - 2009 I - 2009 II - 2010 I

Nordenskiöld

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Robertgreer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Destruction of Israel listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Destruction of Israel. Since you had some involvement with the Destruction of Israel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one for your funny hatnotes list

Anal language [1]
Not to be confused with Anus language

Anus language [2]
Not to be confused with Anal language

.. Too bad it was just recently reverted though. -- œ ^™ 12:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really must delete the page. If word gets out people start vanda-pussy-lizing Wikipedia just to get their "creative work" immortalized :-)

For now the page itself can still be found here: User:Petri Krohn/Best hat texts -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is.. I actually thought that those anus/anal hatnotes were serious at first! But you have a good point. We don't want to be feeding the trolls. A lot of people have their own "Funny vandalism"-type lists but I've found most of them are usually witty/intelligent vandalism, the kind of stuff you'd find at WP:BJAODN, rather than inane, immature fart humor (although, admittedly, I'm a kid at heart, and can't help but snicker at things like this "FL Fart", or "Ho Fuk Yan", I guess I'm just a fan of bilingual heteronyms and mondegreens :). I used to have a list of "funny edit summaries" and "funny usernames" but I git rid of it. What's left of it is at one of my subpages if you're interested. -- œ ^™ 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life forms

I've responded on my talk. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary tax

Hi,

I noticed that you put an NPOV tag on the revolutionary tax article. Do you mind stating your specific problems on the article talk page?

I know its not great and I would like to emphasise that I didn't write it... but I have just tried to remove what I think are the most egregious examples. I think it's an interesting subject and would benefit from more neutral coverage.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for that axe

It's a self-published book, see [3]. Not a reliable source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, will get back to you in just a moment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down? I'll admit it's hot here, but my fan keeps me cool. :-) I've replied on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lex and Lester Coleman

No, I have no personal knowledge or any connection whatsoever to either party. I personally do not want to get involved in any further discussions related to Lester Coleman. Cheers.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

WP:NPA - to say that the moves were bad, is part of an ATTACK

Schwyz (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwyz, please assume good faith. Petri, your comment would be much appreciated here. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 9, 2010; 15:40 (UTC)

WP:Schwanz

Stop posting pictures of shit on the ANI board. It's not particularly civil nor is particularly nice talk either. Keep that in mind. KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should I turn "Safe search" on or off in Google image search, if I want to know what that German word means in English? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Hey Petri, I just posed a follow-up question for you at the Fox News RfC. Your last statement appears to be somewhat at odds with the first one. Could you reconcile the two? Namely, do you "find it unconceivable that we would label Fox a "questionable source" – and issue a blanket ban on its use on Wikipedia" or do you believe that Fox News should be declared "Not a reliable source". Or did I mis-read the first comment? Was your first comment saying that we should declare FNC as unreliable and issue a ban against its use?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prince-Bishop

I've just reverted User:Radeksz's edit at Prince-Bishop and suggested we discuss the issue to try to find consensus at Talk:Prince-Bishop#Nationalist / anti-nationalist place naming, where I assume you will way to express your opinion. Let's see if we can solve this dispute amicably. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Holocaust victims

An excellent source would be Anton Weiss-Wendt's book "Murder without hatred" - no one can accuse him of having any Estonian sympathies, quite the opposite. His numbers are very similar to History Commission's findings (actually, even slightly lower) and reached completely independently.

Also, I don't think the death of Soviet POW's can be included to Holocaust numbers, but, then again, I am not a specialist on that area. It might be better to use non-Soviet sources, as Soviet ones are not especially known for accuracy. Do Soviet numbers include the number of soldiers killed in battles, perhaps? Otherwise the discrepancy is just too big.

--Sander Säde 06:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reference. I would love to have the book, but I found it a bit too expensive for my Wikibudget (I did however spend a hundred Euros to digitize some photos from the Estonian state archives.)

As for the numbers, I have no idea as to the reason for the discrepancy. However I feel it would primarily be the responsibility of the Estonian History Commission to explain how and why their numbers differ so much from previously published numbers. I do not remember if they have done that – if not, it would go a long way in undermining their credibility.

I will look for more specific sources on the breakup of the numbers. At this moment I am still looking for the 20,000 missing Jews who were imported to Estonian camps and somehow mysteriously survived the Holocaust. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved discussion to Talk:The Holocaust in Estonia#Number of Holocaust victims -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Kray, miy ridniy kray

Moved to Talk:Kray, miy ridniy kray#Copyright violation?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honour, or not?

We have a parameter in Template:Other ships referring to "honours" the ship has had. Apparently a passed-along parameter. I looked for the original editor which was you to help determine the type of English, since it is not American. Not sure original ownership helps anyway since it appears to be passed along to yet another template which may well be owned by the Brits. Any ideas, or should I just drop it? Thanks.

Incidentally, I like the way you have structured you contributions. Very nice! Student7 (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be any "honours" parameter in Template:Other ships. There is one in Template:Infobox ship career. Maybe you have just mixed up the templates? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a "pass through" parameter which I just changed successfully. I didn't realize they worked like that. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you, very much, for your kind words at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia about my work on the article. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

communicat

Thanks for your word of advice. I'll think about it, once I've sorted out various policy matters with wiki admin and others regarding cabalism and free flow of information. This will take some time at the current pace of "progress".

I see you have a dead link for Allied occupation of Europe. I wonder what happened there?

Regards,

Communicat (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Shit~~ EEML happened! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – We do not even have United States military presence in Europe, yet we have Soviet occupations and about ~~a hundred~~ 114 subpages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re

I am sorry, but that indeed was circus or worse. I am sorry, but calling other people "clowns" is not really helpful, especially after such my edit summary. I hoped you would respect my wish. No further circus, please.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have respected your wish, as you see here. Now go do something useful and fun or I will ask some administrator to reopen the case. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What this suppose to mean? The AE request was about Russavia and not about me. You closed it to support Russavia, and no, you did not respect my wish, as follows from your own diff. I do not need any favors from you except leaving me alone [4]. The revert by Russavia was one something I do not care that much. But retaliation campaign against me by Russavia, Offliner, Igny and you has to stop. Do you agree? Will you leave me alone? "Yes" would be enough. Biophys (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I can reopen the WP:AE case. You may however note that several people have argued for sanctions against you. Also note, that a circus clown is a very respected profession; whacking a clown is never offensive.

And yes, I have left you alone. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the answer is "yes". Thank you. This is all I wanted to hear. As about closing this AE request, I have no judgment except this should be done by uninvolved administrators. P.S. I am not a professional clown, as you are probably aware. And it was never my intention to appear as clown here. I take it seriously. Biophys (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you, I appreciate it. :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aftermath ww2

Thanks your suggestion, which makes sense. Shouldn't take long to fix that page. Between the two of us we probably have sufficient sources for a good start. Small problem: overlap with Cold War article. Wonder if it might not be a good idea to re-title it "Immediate aftermath of WW2"? (The long aftermath was of course half a century of CW) Just a thought. I'll let you know when I'm ready to make a start. If I'm not blocked again. Regards. Communicat (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of South Africa

Petri, thank you for providing sources and improving the article. Unfortunately your statements on the talk page came across as personal attacks to me. I suggest you carefully read the links I provided. The alleged source, "Fascism Today: A world survey" clearly does not even mention Hendrik van den Bergh, so it cannot source that he was head of this organization. Likewise, my link shows that "Fascism Today: A world survey" says that Broederbond was created before the Ossewa Brandwag and that the latter organization evolved into the National Party, not the Broederbond. When Comminicat is trying to use "Fascism Today: A world survey" to support things that are not mentioned or are flatly contradicted in "Fascism Today: A world survey" that is not a content dispute, especially when other users have documented Communicat doing the same thing with other sources in other articles. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify - I have no doubt that Bergh was part of these organizations - other sources clearly show that. The problem is that "Fascism Today: A world survey" does not mention him at all. Edward321 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case you should have just added a {{fact}} tag after his name.

As for the talk page, I suppose you are referring to User talk:Georgewilliamherbert/Archives/2010/September#Communicat 2. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the hat. I thought about doing it myself but didn't want it to seem like I was just doing it because my comment(s) ended up on the wrong side of the hat line.--*Kat* (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cc exaggeration

I removed your tag, since the article had already been moved, without redirect, back to MN's userspace. The redirect Rd232 replaced it with seems appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I thought your tagging was the result of a server lag. Sorry about that. Guettarda (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems a reasonable redirect. why not leave it? Rd232 ^talk 13:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because it makes an undiscussed change to the status quo against existing consensus. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When the article was deleted, there was no climate change alarmism article. It exists now, and (IMO...I'm a major contributor, so I may be biased) the new article covers the material in an appropriate and NPOV manner. The status quo was changed when the cc alarmism article was created (and survived an AFD). The redirect has the added advantage that it informs anyone trying to create a cc exaggeration article that the topic is already covered and maybe, just maybe, might make them reconsider creating the article. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Rd232 ^talk 14:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood! I do however suggest that you WP:SALT the redirect to prevent recreation of deleted content. If you think that the two of you are too involved use your admin channels and have someone else do it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too active in the area to do that. Better to ask someone less involved. Guettarda (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes

This article is under a 1r restriction, you have broken it, please self revert mark nutley (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not. My first edit introduced a new lede and deleted / reverted some content. My second edit restored the new lede (revet #1) and integrated changes made after my first edit to section Origin of debate by User Paul Siebert (talk · contribs). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have, first revert [5] Second revert [6] Please self revert and get consensus before such changes in the future, thanks mark nutley (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think so, then you should report me to the appropriate forum, wherever that is. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok see Here mark nutley (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Killings is under 1RR - clearly marked on edit and talk pages

At this point, I assume you are aware of the Digwuren sanctions. I have posted your 2RR on that page at WP:AE. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

An Arbitration Enforcement review has been requested concerning you. You can view it and respond here. --WGFinley (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mass killings under Communist regimes

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. As you are now aware this article has a 1RR restriction, please mind them in the future. --WGFinley (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that you were ever formally warned about general sanctions editing these articles, consider this your warning. Having previously served some long blocks I would encourage you to use a great amount of care editing these articles. Also you have a comment on the AE filing you didn't sign. --WGFinley (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Wgfinley's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

communicat again

Hi, for some reason I missed your earlier post inquiring about my meaning of revisionism, i.e. "same as Historiography of the Cold War# Revisionism or are you maybe referring to Historical revisionism (negationism)?" -- I'm referring to same as historiography of CW and generally accepted meaning of the word. Negationism? Nah, not for me. (Sounds a bit too much like Doestoyevski).

Thnaks for helping with jpeg licensing suggestion. I might or might not get around to sorting it out at some point if or when Winer becomes available again for consultation. Regards, Communicat (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your: Wikipedia does not exactly open the pictures for commercial "exploitation"; the GFDL and other copyleft licenses are "commie poison" that prevent any future exploitation. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is deletion note by Someguy, which states the opposite, namely: "... all images must be published under an unrestricted license, such that Wikipedia may be copied in its entirety by anyone for any purpose (including commercial ones). Someguy1221 (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

You should familiarize yourself with the concepts of free content and copyleft. After this revolution initiated by Richard Stallman "free" has replaced "non-commercial" as the right thing to do. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Winer?

Who is Winer anyway? I did not find any mention of him in the South African web. I may have found his Facebook page, but he did not seem to have too many friends. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re who is Winer? I don't know about the South African web (didn't even know there's such a thing), but the international web certainly mentions him as the author of numerous web-published and other articles, and the last of his three published books, according to my information, has been downloaded at least two million times from various sites including his own. I've also interviewed him in person and correspond with him from time to time, so I know he definitely exists, (or at least did exist until fairly recently). Communicat (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake! By "the South African web" I refer to searching on Google with the directive site:za. I accidentally ended up searching in Saudi Arabia :-) Here is the proper search link. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S – Do you think he would be so notable, that we could write an article on him? I would need reliable sources. His texts them self are not a source for anything but his opinion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "we", I hope you're not including me. But if you care to travel to SA, you'll find all his primary historical documentation / biographical papers etc neatly filed and publicly accessible in a big file at the official South African History Archive in Pretoria, and more at Witwatersrand University library archives in Johannesburg. Why are you so interested in him? Communicat (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two references for future use. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No agreement to disagree, apparently

I had rather hoped that after our discussion you would "give it a rest;" however, I'm in the unfortunate position of having to point out that you have failed to do so and, in fact, continue to escalate by spreading false victimology. I am notifying you as a courtesy. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of my name

Ok, first let me just make it clear that this is no way an "attack" or that I'm implying you did anything wrong, or that I was offended in anyway or that it is anything but what it is (weird that I even have to clarify this first) - a spelling correction. But I've noticed you've been misspelling my user name as "Radecsz", which is incorrect. My username is "Radeksz", like in Karl Radek (though that was the guy's pseudonym while it's my first name). If you really want to keep calling me "Radecsz" that's fine too, I don't care, weird though it may look to me. You can also just refer to me as "radek" which is how my signature shows up.radek (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Albania

This edit is way over the line and I did not expect it from you. I will kindly ask you to remove it and to avoid such comments. You are welcome to edit in Balkan related topics and I for first am very glad that we have people from outside to give their opinion. However, please try to refrain from calling Scynthians whoever the Albanians' neighbors are or were. National identities as you may know are a delicate topic and that war is a very sensible topic because lots of lives were lost. Thank you for your understanding and also for allowing me to edit in your talk page. --Sulmues ^(talk) 00:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct your statement

You've made a statement[7] at the newest EEML request that claims the mailing list was primarily directed at you and your "supposed" real life identity. As I've already mentioned to you once, while it perfectly acceptable to make the link yourself (in no uncertain terms)[8] and later decide that perhaps you didn't want to release that information [9], it is completely inappropriate that you attempt to tar and feather editors for "outing" you based on your own edits. I would also suggest that making obviously false claims (the mailing list being mostly about you) is both disruptive and detrimental to any point you're trying to make. It might help if you took a bit of a break from dealing with editors who weer involved in the EEML case since interacting with them seems to bring out the worst in you at the moment. Shell ^babelfish 15:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about this. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Albania move

Bold move! (not that I don't agree) Anyway, you removed the dates (1912-1913) from the title. Was this intentional? I'm just wondering, as some said the dates should be there, but I guess if there's no similar events it doesn't need to be. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for disambiguation, not at least until we have some other article on some other Balkan occupation. I do not know if the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) ever reached Ottoman Albania. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

but the Venetians reached Albania for sure, see Venetian Albania.Alexikoua (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there was a defined Albania then anyway. The Albania form 1912-1913 was, as noted throughout the...discussion, accepted as an autonomous albanian area by the Ottomans at the time. Anyway, thanks for clarifying! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold indeed. I'm not sure a non-admin can close a page move like that. I also see no consensus for Occupation of Ottoman Albania, which I find problematic for the reasons I will outline in the talkpage. Athenean (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions. If you want to file any more complaints, I suggest you speak to User:Sandstein. He may however have zero understanding for "Balkanic silliness". I must also warn you that he has a habit of blocking habitual ethnic warriors on sight. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an even better idea [10]. Athenean (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really do not understand the Balkans. Now you lost and the Albanians won. Are you happy now? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Estonian Mark 1919.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Estonian Mark 1919.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Willi Münzenberg

“...only two hundred yards from the camp.” From which “camp”?----141.13.170.175 (talk) 18:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the camp for foreigners at Chambaran in Lyon" from where he had just escaped? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“Le plateau de Chambaran”, in France, is situated in the east of the “Département de l'Isère”, which is to be found in a remarkable distance to Lyon.----141.13.170.175 (talk) 18:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where any of these are. You removed the content and the two references. I restored the references and tried to integrate your changes to the old text. The issue should be discussed at Talk:Willi Münzenberg. Take it there. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.k.----141.13.170.175 (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Willi Münzenberg#Place of death?. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users...

...are not allowed to edit, regardless of the alleged "quality" of entries posted by their socks. If you are reposting entries from banned users after other users have deleted them, you are in violation of policy and you need to stop it. Please return to WP:ANI and continue the discussion there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep arguing about "content". You're wrong. Banned users are not allowed to edit. There is no compromise on that point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you not keep the issue at AN/I where it should be. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you continue to make the same bogus argument and you won't respond when it's pointed out that it's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the argument here is a form of harassment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then come back to ANI and explain yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if you continue to stonewall the discussion, I will recommend that an RFC/U be filed against you, for proxying edits of a banned user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've a good mind to file the RFC/U against you myself. Your actions in this thing have been disgraceful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lester Coleman

Hi! Let's take a look at these edits:

You removed the BOP results info without explaining why it violates BLP. I am not convinced at all that it violates BLP. The Federal Bureau of Prisons is an accurate source.
The same edit restored Arabic into the name, even though Lester Coleman is not an Arab and does not hold a citizenship in any Arab countries.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for you to complain here. I have already opened a section on the talk page. You should comment there.

As to your question, the Federal Bureau of Prisons may be accurate, but it is a primary source and thus unusable in a WP:BLP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "There is no reason for you to complain here. I have already opened a section on the talk page. You should comment there." - Just post a link to the talk page discussion and please say "Please discuss it at XXXX". It's much better way to tell someone to post there.

And when it's one on one and I think it will be resolved quickly, I do believe that there is a reason for me to "complain" on user talk pages. It's my way of saying "Hey! We need to discuss this matter!" I do this because it is a 100% sure way of notifying the other party, and then from there we can decide where the discussion venue is. Next time, if someone raises an issue with you on your talk page, just link to the Wikipedia article talk page and say "please discuss it here"

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the name in Arabic, he has spent most of his life in Arab countries and most references to him are in fact in Arabic. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Maybe I could see what kind of noticeboard would discuss that. Lemme see if I can fetch a link... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biography#Arabic_name_posting_for_a_non-Arab_person WhisperToMe (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pheko

Hi, yes I know him. Why in particular have you suggested I took a look at it?

Meanwhile, I've not forgotten the Aftermath project. Will get down to it soon. Regards. Communicat (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested the article because I thought you would be more familiar with the subject than the people now working on the article. More important, you might be able to find and evaluate sources. The article is under some kind of pressure. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I'm familiar with the subject, thanks for the offer, but am not inclined to get involved there, nor with any of the various other South African party-political type articles, which are similarly in a shambolic mess, (just like the everyday politics of the country itself). Speaking about a shambles, maybe these links might be of interest to you: here 1 and here 2 Communicat (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State

My recent edit to State was clearly not vandalism, and by labelling it otherwise you are being grossly insulting. Please withdraw this assertion. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I misread the edit history, and did not notice you had edited the article after Collect's revert. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to my other reasons for reverting, the page has finally stabilized, so I am afraid any tweaking can escalate into an extended round of WP:BRD if not outright edit warring. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 23:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aftermath / renewal ww2

How about adding an objective comment at current discussion re ww2 aftermath history of Korea? Communicat (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for welocming and for help offering

Sure, if anyone offers something useful - I will be thankful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbeehvh (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit request to undo your undoing

I am open to criticism, especially from experienced users, but just undoing my work is not a fair criticism. Bbeehvh (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not "undone" your work. In International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict I accepted 4 out of your 7 edits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, can you explain then your changes? Bbeehvh (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a reference, that is a no-no on Wikipedia. I did not see you other edits useful – at least not worth the effort of separating them by hand from your offending edit. I have now restored the wikilink to Arab Peace Initiative. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

permanent link. It suddenly all came back to me! I got into this mess with the topic that I'd better not mention at the moment, because of some commentary of yours on User Talk:Jehochman. Troublemaker!!! Well, I've also sent you an email. --Abd (talk) 02:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Got your email.)

Yes, I have read the paper in Naturwissenschaften; congratulations for your acknowledgement.

It seems both of us have had conflicts on Wikipedia that have sparked real world carriers. I too have been in contact with important and influential people. Unfortunately, what they have said has not always been as nice. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – I did not know your interest in ~~retracted~~ common cold was sparked by my comment at User Talk:Jehochman! If that is so, then I deserve at least acknowledgement for your acknowledgement. And if your $100 gadget is of some use to something, then maybe the spam blacklist was useful after all. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Pons

Please discuss issues on the talk page instead of reverting back and forth repeatedly. -- Cirt (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri, i am surprised that you would revet back in those ref names. They are terrible man, i`m guessing you did not notice them and you ought to say sorry to o2rr for bringing this to the BLN board. I know your a good editor but i reckon you made a mistake here mate mark nutley (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marxism and revolutionary violence

I would prefer one of the articles to be called "Left-wing terrorism" which is a category actually used in the literature.[11] You could ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism, although that page seems to attract little discussion. Otherwise you could contact the 17 project members listed. You could also look to see if there already is an article about revolutionary violence. I notice there is an article called Revolutionary terror. TFD (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A have tagged the article with a {{Merge-from}} template. The article seems to be a WP:POVFORK or duplicate of Communist terrorism, or at least the content now being pushed to that article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Finns

Hi, here's something might or might not be of interest to you Jewish Finns fought alongside Germans in WW2

Still interested in backing me with rework aftermath as earlier suggested? Am about ready to begin. Communicat (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

User:Off2riorob has chosen to refer to you at an Arbcom matter.[12] TFD (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1R Restriction

Your funny, you ask me to reinsert a BLP violation as i had broken the 1R on the article, so you went and put it back yourself along with the same BLP violation? I reccomend you self revert mark (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet made a single revert today. Collect objected to an earlier version, claiming weasel words. I agreed, and proposed an other version that addressed the issue. As for your BLP claim, my first version may have implied that R. J. Rummel is anti-communist – he is. The second version makes no such implication. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You reinserted the same basic contested text twice Petri, it is a revert and you know it mark (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BRD

WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation

Hi, I saw your comment and didn't think that was the case, could you point me to the detail, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may be off-base here (and I'm definitely not Petri) but I interpret a 1Rrrestrcton as limiting you to one Revert per day, but other edits, that would not be construed as reverts, would not count against the "limit" (in quotes, because it isn't really an allowance, but you know what I mean)--SPhilbrick T 20:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I also see it that way and when I was on a six week one revert condition was informed in no uncertain terms, to stick to that, no mention of a Bold revert discuss exception? Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I try to maintain a 0 RR policy – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. In many cases this would mean retaining over 50% of the disputed content. I believe these edits to fall within WP:BRD, not edit warring. On the other hand, someone can always claim that that are reverts, as they restore some content.

The problems arise with a mandatory 1RR is in place. Reverts are counted per article, not per content. If you revert spam or near vandalism in the morning you can no longer revert pov-pushing in the afternoon!

As to your question, yes you can "revert" if you follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. By definition WP:BRD is not edit warring, as you are not reverting 1 RR or 3 RR does not count. The question is, how do you convince others, including AE administrators that your edits are BRD? There are SPI editors on Wikipedia who will stop at nothing to disable their opponents, and will be arguing that you are edit warring. One way to keep on the safe side is to always introduce new references, no matter how trivial. However, there is no silver bullet. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"By definition WP:BRD is not edit warring" - but this is not related to edit warring but one revert conditions? Off2riorob (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1/3RR only applies to edit warring. Per Wikipedia:Edit warring: This is known as the bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle, and is not edit warring. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting the assertions, I would like to get some admin feedback on the issue and will post you a link if I find anything out, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- There is some discussion and comment here, as I read it it seems if a user had one revert and they then made another and claimed BRD they would be hard pressed to get support for that claim. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

Petri, not knowing whether you are watchlisting my talk page, I'll follow-up here : I appreciate your thanks, although I do feel like a boy sticking a finger in a dike, that page gives me the feeling it could turn into a disaster. I appreciate that you supported your edit with a reference, which is the main reason I said I didn't have a problem with it. That said, I like it when the lede is a summary of material in the main article, so I wish the discussion were about the appropriate paragraph for the main part of the article, then later decide it is deserves a mention in the lede. However, I tried reading the talk page, and it I quite contentious and involved, so I'm not optimistic.--SPhilbrick T 21:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also remember to read all the 23 archives :-) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

linking to holocaust denial sites

it must have not have been your intention, but you used a holocaust denial website, [13] as a reference. See: [14] please make sure that never happens again. best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Hatnotes

Hi Petri,

When your block ends, if you continue to believe that we should be disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous on Wikipedia, you may want to start a discussion here in order to change the guideline. Not disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous is an established guideline and as Battle of Lissa (1811) is currently the featured article of the day, I have re-removed the hatnote from that article.

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of American Socialist Party for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article American Socialist Party, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Socialist Party until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. RolandR (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left-wing terrorism

I have re-created the article Left-wing terrorism. It would be useful to attract neutral editors which I will try to do through use of categories, etc. It often is better to start anew with a poorly written POV article, but we cannot create POV forks. In this case though "Communist Terrorism" is just OR, something combining different subjects including Left-wing terrorism, in ways that no one else has. TFD (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

communicat - incident notice - arbcom

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism

I would not use the Protection officer training manual. tertiary sources are based on secondary sources, do not undergo the same fact-checking and do not use footnotes. Although I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this book, this type of source is a gold-mine for POV pushers and I have been involved in numerous content disputes involving them. If an inaccurate claim is made in one of these sources, then POV-pushers will put it into the article and it may be very difficult to disprove it. You cannot check the original source used for the claim and unlike academic sources, you will not find corrections in academic journals. You can look at the discussion pages for Classical liberalism, Libertarianism and others where several editors have argued endlessly about using Encyclopedia Britannica On-line. One editor even got EB to change the wording of an article. See also my comments to mark nutley about Timothy McVeigh. TFD (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

another holocaust denial website you used

i brought this up earlier a few threads above this one, where you ignored my good faith comment. i was very disappointed to find another "reference" you added from a holocaust denial website.[15] please review your recent edits and remove any such sources that you used. if i find any more of these sources, i will have no choice but to move on to ANI or AE. best.,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification

You are mentioned here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

I've noticed that you've continually inserted comments that were removed by other users there. Please note the those comments were courtesy blanked to protect individuals, so please do not add them back. You are of course welcome to comment, but please do so without restoring the removed content. Netalarm^talk 01:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Content appears clean... I think? If I missed anything, feel free to remove it (those sites). Netalarm^talk 01:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange because the evidence I presented was persuasive and the evidence you presented was conclusive. If mark nutley was not behind those edits then it is even more important that we find out who was. I sent a note to Newyorkbrad about this. I let the last SPI go because I thought mark nutley would stop, but you have shown that it was not an isolated event. I would not assume that they are cooperating off-wiki - it is more likely that they just think alike. But we should ensure that this issue is properly investigated. The argument that CU has cleared mark nutley is just absurd. TFD (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A related SPI case of a user using the same anonymizing proxy network is here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UGAdawgs2010/Archive. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page devoted to this, WP:OP - didn't know if you knew about it. Here is a link to the closing of the recent ANI. TFD (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know now! I have been posting there all day. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked to see if one of your IPs had edited and found that IP69.91.223.154 had edited Cinnamon Gardens.[16] Looking at the edit history, I found that various IPs have been reversing editors with accounts. It seems that there is a long list of potential IPs. I checked the first few but could not find them on the OP page. TFD (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI is now closed and it would be best not to comment on it. I understand that the assumption of bad faith for your work must be irritating, especially when you made no comments about any editor's postings off-wiki. In future of course it will be possible to check these IPs before submitting them to SPI, which will avoid these types of reactions. Among those opposing the SPI were editors who have received sanctions for editing at Climate change, Eastern Europe, the British far right and U.S. politics, all from a right-wing perspective. Whether or not that influenced their approach is something that you may decide. The evidence you brought to SPI has not been erased but is being reviewed by Arbcom and there is no need to discuss it further at least until they have decided. In the meantime your work in finding OPs should be helpful across a range of articles including many you have never edited. TFD (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird, that no one informed me of the multiple discussions all around Wikipedia about the SPI case and my actions in it. I have belatedly stated my views "for the record" here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent legal threat on talk page of blocked user. Nobody seems to to have paid much attention, except maybe those persistently stalking my edits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: SPI

The sock I was referring to wasn't attacking Bongwarrior, they were making a nuisance of themselves on Administrators' Noticeboard and harassing Tiptoety via multiple IPs. I'd mentioned that I'd requested the page for protection to Bongwarrior since he was there at the time reverting him along with me. Bongwarrior wasn't involved; he was just there at the time. HalfShadow 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An award

Petri, as promised. Your methods are unusual, and your tact has in places been some of the worst I've seen. But there's no doubt you're entitled to this:

File:Detective barnstar.png
The proxy sock sleuth barnstar!

Here's the full current and confirmed list from the aforementioned proxy network, which can only be confirmed because of your contribution:

109.200.6.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
174.137.52.192/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
174.36.29.64/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
216.169.108.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
216.169.110.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
66.199.232.128/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
66.199.245.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
72.20.28.0/28 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
72.20.28.112/28 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
72.9.104.8/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
74.115.210.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
74.115.214.128/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
81.94.201.80/28 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
83.133.122.112/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
83.133.123.118/32 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
83.133.124.98/31 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
85.17.231.112/29 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
94.46.3.192/27 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
95.143.195.0/25 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))
96.45.189.192/26 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

I'll be keeping an eye out. Until next time. regards. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

Checking edits by linking to toolserver.

Confirmed by Singapore

These were found earlier based on the Singapore evidence, and are already listed at User:Petri Krohn/Pink proxy

New ranges

These were found by user zzuuzz using independent technical analyzis.

Others

Confirmed by Singapore, but not listed above

Others, unconfirmed by Singapore

Missing

72.20.28.0/28 and 72.20.28.112/28 should be 72.20.28.0/25 per these .22, 50 edits.

Thanks for asking

In the first place, thanks for asking, it's appreciated. Anyway, you can just refer to me as Volunteer Marek (or VM if that's too long) and generally I don't see a reason why you'd want to refer to my old username. If you want to refer to something I said then it'd be best to simply provide a diff. Of course there may be some discussions where the old name is somehow very relevant, though I doubt it. In that case, yes it's fine to use the old username. But these instances should be exceptions. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Communist terrorism (disambiguation)

The article Communist terrorism (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

What is the purpose of this disambiguation page? It appears as more of a list of related articles, and not a true disambiguation.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jsfouche ☽☾ talk 03:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist history

The official Ukrainian view is therefore written by someone who is a conspiracy theorist and creationist. Here is a book review he wrote for the JBS debunking global warming. This article by Perloff explains how the U.S. government knew about Pearl Harbor. He deserves his own article. TFD (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right wing extremism is fairly common in Eastern Europe today. I found this article helpful in explaining it. TFD (talk) 03:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why

are you inserting unreliable sources into an article like you did here [17] when you are obviously well aware that they are unreliable and in fact you refer to them as "propaganda" [18] (which they are - but again, why are you then putting them in?) Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copyright theft claim

Just to clarify something, and to put you in the picture: Some time back, you observed casually that a pic of Vorster which I'd uploaded as a historical image had earlier been used without creditation by a certain anti-apartheid organisation. Edward321 has repeatedly cited you as the source of copyright theft allegations which he's been repeating at various forums. I have posted on his talk page a warning to stop making baseless claims, and I've also given him an explanation as to why the image was not credited to Stan Winer when and where it was published by the organisation in question. The photographer has explained to me via email correspondence that the image was circulated and published by various international activist organisations at a time when those organisations were considered subversive by the apartheid fascists. For that reason, those organisations were officially banned in South Africa, where the photographer/copyright owner was based at the time. Proven links to a banned organisation would have rendered the photographer/copyright holder liable to arrest and prosecution under the "security" and censorship laws of the time. For that reason the image was not openly credited. I hope this clarifies the record. Thanks & Regards, Communicat (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When did he last repeat these allegations? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This is a good catch:[19] Unfortunetely such things do appear somewhat common on Wiki :( Here is something similiar[20] that I had to deal with regarding Herero Genocide(will have to clean up the article and expand sometime in the future, and of course somebody already restored this). --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I bet Dr. Nordbruch is a supporter of Nordicist theories, just like Carl O. Nordling seems to be. Makes you wonder why he chose the Southern hemisphere. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Offliner has chosen to involve you by contending I have attacked you. Regrettably I've been forced to respond, I had hoped to let our prior unpleasantries pass without further comment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am just about to post a comment. As I have stated in my draft statement, I harbor no ill feelings against you. However, I am forced to ask for an interaction ban. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for an interaction ban is rather based on a misinterpetation of the situation and assuming bad faith on my part. Regardless, we have both been provoked into an avoidable conflict as the result of Offliner leveling accusations involving you. Please see the enforcement request regarding my updated response. I trust you will choose to see the situation for what it is as well and act accordingly. I look forward to debating you on the sources. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is a limited time offer. If you chose to join in renouncing Offliner's latest block shopping and enforcement request and acknowledge it for the provocation it is, editors from "both sides" (such as others have chosen to perceive them) might well follow. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've chosen to escalate in response. I've had to therefore also view your question below as baiting within the area of my current topic ban, although you can "Wikilawyer" (your description of the current AE) it as asking the wind as it merely follows this conversation under its own section and appears on your talk, not mine. (You shouldn't have put in the "Off-topic" observation which rather linked it back to this topic.)

Should you agree to a recanting of our mutual escalation at Offliner's AE request, that offer is still open, however I regret that you've exhausted my willingness to take unilateral action to defuse the AE. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I have escalated anything. As for the stuff below, I had no ill intentions. I thought you too would enjoy the humor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see yours. If you don't think you've escalated anything, then we'll just have to see where the AE goes. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic – Latvians hunting for sources

There is an interesting piece of information in the New York Times article this week. Almost makes me LOL!

“

Latvian émigrés sympathetic to Mr. Demjanjuk secretly arranged for the O.S.I.’s trash to be delivered to them each day from 1985 to 1987. The émigrés rifled through the garbage to find classified documents that could help Mr. Demjanjuk,

”

Source: Eric Lichtblau (November 13, 2010). "Nazis Were Given 'Safe Haven' in U.S., Report Says". The New York Times: A1.

Did you happen to know any of these people? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know anyone who would be among the alleged deleted. Ask me again about the Justice Department's OSI when my topic ban expires. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc - NPOV - communicat

Hi, in case you're interested, an Rfc has been lodged re my alleged lack of neutrality concerning start-class Aftermath of World War II article. You may care to comment accordingly. Regards Communicat (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

[21]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-confederates

The two parties have always had a left-right division, but since both were "liberal" parties, the ideological divide was not as great as in Europe, and regional and religious divisions were often as great as class divisions. Notably the southern elites backed the Democrats against the party of the Eastern industrialists. Over the last half century they have moved to the Republican Party. The neo-confederates are typical of the radical right that sees big business, the Communists and the "liberals" as party of some gigantic conspiracy. Marx btw was a foreign correspondent for the New York Tribune, founded by Horace Greeley, who was a Lincoln supporter. TFD (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You and Vecrumba are under an interaction ban, per WP:AE

Hello Petri. Please see this result of an arbitration enforcement request. You and Vecrumba (talk · contribs) are prohibited from commenting on or unnecessarily interacting with each other on any page of Wikipedia, except for purposes of legitimate and necessary dispute resolution. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some humor

Question: How do you know you have made it on Wikipedia?

Answer: You chat with your "wikifriends" on WP:AE and WP:A/R/A instead of WP:AN/I and WP:AN3.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are "former EEML member"

In case you didn't notice: user Habap, in ongoing attempts to discredit both you and me, has described you as a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Communicat_RfC.2FU "former EEML member"].

In a message to user Georgewilliamherbert the specific words used by Habap are: He (communicat) has entirely rewritten the article in a short span of time and I don't think anyone's noticed. This was done based on advice given him by former EEML member, Petri Kohn[1]. --Habap (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

User Paul Siebert then sent him a message clarifying that you were not EEML member, but as far as I know Habap has still failed to retract. I would have brought this to your notice earlier, but I've been blocked for the past couple of weeks. Communicat (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration / reliable source

hi, In case you're interested: An arbitration application has been accepted by the arbitration committee concerning POV-bias at military history project Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Military_history_POV-bias

There's also some interesting related talk at Reliable Sources Noticeboard: [[22]] Communicat (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a look – but not today. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Digwuren one is not allowed to call other editors "Nazis" - Stalinist is acceptable, and Martintg is trying to argue that fascist is the same as Nazi. TFD (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmark

Bookmark for future use: [23] -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your citation needed note on The Ghost of the Executed Engineer

I noticed that you added a citation needed tag for the claim that Palinchsky was executed by the Soviets. Isn't the book the article is about enough of a citation? 144.92.184.170 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "executed" in this context means Extrajudicial punishment in the Soviet Union. If he was tried, you need to mention that. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof. The book itself is not sufficient for this part of Palinchsky's biography, or if it is used, we need far more detail and page numbers. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redact

Please remove or strike through the following statement Unfortunately he failed to give credit to the creator and copyright owner as our license requires. that you made here [24] as it is a very serious accusation and since you have made it without any support or foundation, it violates numerous Wikipedia policies. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will redact it with an explanation – after you take the following step: Record your move with two {{Copied}} tags on Talk:Treaties of Bautzen and Merseburg in a similar manner as I have done on Talk:Communist terrorism. Note however, that this is not the only part of your omission. You should have also given credit to the author / article when you first started moving the content. I believe your failure to give credit to the copyright owner was the primary reason why your conflict with User:Skäpperöd escalated. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either you remove the statement or you don't. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's appreciated. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

request

Please use your sandbox, or your userspace to store links which you may feel are important/relevant/significant/of interest to you for some reason, rather than randomly (your words) putting them on article pages as you did here [25]. Thanks. Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which one are you referring to? The Stormfront website you posted? Sorry, but I have no interest in even clicking on that kind of trash. And you shouldn't have an interest in posting it on Wikipedia. Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally the one in the link you provided. It contains a French translation of the original 1943 report, or parts of it. I have not been able to find it in English, except for the summary on anti-communist sites. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is some reason for that link to be there, then explain it on talk and/or include it in the article (provided it's RS and all that). Otherwise, don't use talk pages to store 'random links'. Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookmarks

bookmark. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On genocides

Some thoughts based on this reference – for future reference.

Erickson, Richard J. (1973). "Development of the Strategy of Peaceful Coexisting During the Khrushchev Era". Air University Review. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

We are all ready to condemn the first half of the 20th century as an era of never ending genocide. Yet we forget this: war was inevitable and peaceful coexistence was impossible. We make our judgment from the moral high ground of a genocide-free world. But in truth, the Cold War threat of mutual assured destruction by global thermonuclear warfare was far worse genocide than anything that existed before. It is only because of the false perspective of incredible luck – or of the anthropic principle – that we see our era as peaceful. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Stokes Diorama

Hi Petri Krohn, with reference your recent tag on the Diorama Article. (This section contains information which may be of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter. Please help improve this article by clarifying or removing superfluous information.) I wrote the Daguerre (exhibitions), Gottstein, and Denny Stokes sections (I also own the Pathe depicted diorama). Can you explain what is 'unclear' or 'questionable' or 'irrelevant' to the articles subject matter? Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Silver seren's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Silverseren^C 20:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicat

Have you been following the ArbCom case? You might find it interesting, especially in light of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Requests. --Habap (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't do that

Ok, assuming that this "tag-then-remove-seconds-later" behavior is done in good faith with the aim of marking the nature of edits/ provide a compromise version, it is still improper. Tags are to be placed into an article so that editors can address the issues. If you add a ^{[citation needed]} tag to an article you have to allow time for other editors to provide the citations (and btw, lede's don't get inline citations). Hence, once you put them in you have to leave them there for at least some time. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested

Since you were interested in the topic before, I guess this might be of interest to you: [26] Regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC) PS:Btw-perhaps you could work on denazification article-the issue of rehabilitation of former Nazis by West Germany and USA could certainly be expanded, I think you have the needed knowledge on that.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politburo Standing Committee of the Communist Party of China

Hi, I do not understand why these material [27] is included in the CCP Politburo article. The Wikileaks documents did not come from the PRC government, but speculation from US diplomats. Placing it there might be seen as a violation of WP:UNDUE. I believe that a better place for these material would be Operation Aurora or any other article on Chinese hackings.--PCPP (talk) 09:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. In fact the allegations do not seem to be about the Standing Committee, but about the Politburo in general. Other more appropriate articles would be 17th Politburo of the Communist Party of China or Politburo of the Communist Party of China. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Estates

The article The Estates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

merge with estates of the realm

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easter egg links

Just an FYI - per WP:EGG it is suggested not to "hide" a non-obvious link name inside a pipe such as [28] and here[29]. I cleaned them up via the suggested manner. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Communist terrorism (disambiguation)

Communist terrorism (disambiguation), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Communist terrorism (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Communist terrorism (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tentontunic (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Chinese mobile phones

Category:Chinese mobile phones, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Paul Siebert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OP

I recently filed a report on an OP and wondered if with your knowledge of how they work you could provide some input. Thanks. [30] TFD (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ips are now blocked. TFD (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You're being discussed here [31] and oh, yeah, almost forgot, you're now banned from Mass killings under communist regimes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

holocaustresearchproject.org

Hi Petri, regarding the discussion you started in December about this, I've asked again that it be removed from the spam blacklist. The discussion is here on Meta if you'd like to comment. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me. I should really take part in the discussion. Then again, the sun is shining. Maybe I should just go out and take some pictures of Roman temples :-) Petri Krohn (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arilang1234's removal of referenced material

Hi, I'm trying to raise some concerns here. User Arilang1234 keeps trying to delete referenced material of Prof Mobo Gao (from Uni of South Australia) in the Great Leap Forward article. He claims that Prof Gao's material are fringe because of two "negative" reviews he found, which several other users noted that it's not the case [32]. I've also noted that Prof Gao has been found to be reliable in a previous decision in the Reliable Source noticeboard [33].--59.167.141.97 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia ware

I am pretty sure is Finnish, and therefore I am taking an extreme liberty in hoping you know something about it. I am now familiar with Ulla Procope who designed the Anemone pattern. I have a group of demitasse cups signed "UP/TS" and "UP/IF" and I was hoping you might be able to help me figure out who the second sets of initials belong to (the painters of the design). Many thanks if you can help in this fairly unimportant endeavour. Collect (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean something like this? (The Huuto.net site may still be having their nightly service break, so you may have to look at the ImageShack.us photo) This is in fact part of the Valencia series, you will find the Anemone series here. Both of these are hand painted, so the second set of initials would be the painter.

I did some searching on the web and could not find information on in the individual painters / artists. You can find a list of Arabia designers here. Have not checked if Ulla Procopé has an article, but in fact most if not all of these would be wiki-notable.

I know some (semi) antique dealers specializing in Arabia ware somewhere near our local Al Queda headquarters. (For security reasons can't tell if I live anywhere nearby.) I will ask if they know about the signatures.

As for TS and IF, the second one raises some interest. The letter F is never used in the Finnish alphabet, so it would be an indication of higher social standing, i.e. membership in the previously Swedish speaking estates. If I had to guess, the last name could be something like Florell or Flodin, both families have known artist, or maybe Fagerroos, with a goldsmith and a designer. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – Here is some more information from the company museum: Kuka on suunnittelija? (Who is the designer?) They give as an example the signature UP/AK — AK being the initials of the anonymous executioner of the design. Here is another list of known artists. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "F" is strangely formed - almost like a "T" with a second full crossbar. I had not realized it was not going ro pe a Finnish name. Thanks for the help on this. The links are very interesting to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syktyvkar railway station

What the hell am I doing here? Must have something to do with my Wikipedia activity. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Pieczak

Hei Petri: now that you've made this change (which I agree with), this redirect no longer makes any sense. Worth removing? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Eric Pieczak is, so I cannot comment on the issue. Even if he was the president of France I still would not mention him in the leede section of TGV. I have now redirected it to TGV world speed record. He is not mentioned in that article either though. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I agree that whoever he is, he should not be mentioned in the lead. What I meant is this: maybe the redirect should be removed altogether, thereby making Eric Pieczak a redlink. Redirecting to an article that doesn't even mention him seems confusing to the casual reader. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can squeeze his name into section TGV world speed record#Record of 2007. Here is a source: French train breaks speed record in Champagne. I really do not care. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Terror for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terror is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Tentontunic (talk) 10:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Romanesque sites in Scandinavia

Category:Romanesque sites in Scandinavia, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moderated nuclear explosion -- notable as such?

I don't quite understand why this is an article. "Moderated nuclear explosion" turns up absolutely no literature in a Google Scholar search. Likewise for a Google News Archive search. A moderated.nuclear.explosion Google Book search hardly does any better: I can't see any books using it as a term. This leaves your (re-?)creation of the article open to charges of violating WP:NOR. Citing Busby when he doesn't even use the term "moderated nuclear explosion" (but does mention Chernobyl casualty rates not supported by the UN report) doesn't encourage confidence in the sources you're using for this article. Perhaps I'm missing something here, however, something that people contributing to an Articles for Deletion discussion could pick up. Yakushima (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petri - I respect you as a Wikipedian, but as I said on the AFD for the article, the current round of content additions are just bogus. The speculations you're adding are pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

The info is just not right. The people pushing it are fringe and not reliable sources, the venues are not reliable sources, and the physics is outright wrong.

Please cease with the re-editing it back into the article. It needs to get deleted; if you want to argue that the accusations that some sort of nuclear explosion happened at Fukushima are notable enough for Wikipedia coverage, they need to go in the Fukushima accident articles. I'll move the hydride weapons / Upshot-Knothole Ruth and Ray info to the Nuclear Weapons Design article.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove anything before the AfD closes. (You can of course add something somewhere, if you feel that it is missing.)

I have not added any "pseudoscientific gobbledygook." All that I have added to the article, except four sources, is a single statement stating the fact that a speculation on the causes of the Fukushima explosions exist.

This speculation has been going on on Internet discussion forums almost from the start. At first the sources were of the type "anonymous nuclear expert who is a friend of my brother's ex". What really made me take this seriously (as in WP:RS), was when I heard the news anchor at RT refer to this speculation.

User Yakushima seems to be downplaying Arnie Gundersen as a nutcase, and RT (formerly Russia Today) as a soapbox for conspiracy theorists. Well, here we have Gundersen as an expert on CNN: Hydrogen Explosion of Fukushima reactor #2 discussed with Arnie Gundersen CNN.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what he's talking about with Hydrogen-Oxygen reactions not being able to detonate. They detonate Just Fine - the flammability limit for H2 in air is 3%, the Lower Explosion Limit is 10.5%. Above 10.5% it detonates just fine, and there are volumes of explosives engineering and physics experiments that can provide proof on that.

I also don't know what he's talking about about the reactor rods going prompt critical in the containment pond. The fast fission critical mass for U with low enrichments is impossible - See for example in Nuclear Forensic Analysis by Moody, Hutcheon, and Grant, and the table in the Nuclear Weapons FAQ showing the critical mass increases as enrichment decreases.

Gundersen may be an expert and on CNN but he's making some very fundamental errors on this point and cannot be considered a reliable source on this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tammsalu just indicated that at least two of the reference papers you cited are failing verification as to the specific claims and usage of "moderated nuclear explosion" as you've indicated.

This is highly concerning.

Can you please cite the particular page and paragraph of the information you were using in them to support the article? If this is a misunderstanding or misreading, that's fine, but we need to resolve the details here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"User Yakushima seems to be downplaying Arnie Gundersen as a nutcase." I have said no such thing. I think both he and Christopher Busby are sane, and probably very well-intentioned -- just also very biased, to the point where they make laughable technical errors. Please consider: with only a few years of college physics over 30 years ago, and only some vague understanding (acquired in more recent years) of how detonation works, I was nevertheless able to see immediately that Gundersen was making at least one egregious technical error. An error that, it seems, you did not notice at all -- even as you openly tried to intimidate me from the AfD discussion by requiring that I be a nuclear physics expert to contribute credibly at all.

Also: I'm still waiting for your WP:IAR rationale. How, exactly, does this WP:BOLD action of yours make Wikipedia better? Yakushima (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmshaven mutiny

The article is supposed to be deleted because it was shifted to Sailors' revolt in Kiel; please check the discussion on either article!! The mutiny happened in the North Sea OFF Wilhelmshaven. --Kuhl-k (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. I have undone your cut-and-paste move. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raffaele Bendandi

Please don't accuse me of edit warring, when we are in the middle of a discussion on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made 16 reverts at Raffaele Bendandi in 24 hours. (+ one more seven minutes later.) Please take a break and come back the day after tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no evidence that it was a "content dispute" in any meaningful sense - the edits were so absurd, and unreferenced, as to give every appearance of being vandalism. Now that you have provided a reliable source reporting the suggestion of a connection (refuted, obviously), which I accept should be in the article, we can move on, can't we? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. I will not discuss the issues with you today. As I said earlier, take a break and return to the issue the day after tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, maybe you would like to work on The Day After Tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clarification

Good day, Arequest for clarification has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. Communikat (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 862: / Line 862: @@
 :::Or even better, maybe you would like to work on ''[[The Day After Tomorrow]]''. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] ([[User talk:Petri Krohn#top|talk]]) 23:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
+== clarification ==
+Good day,
+A[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_World_War_II request for clarification] has been filed with Arbcom relative to a case in which you participated or might be affected by. [[User:Communikat|Communikat]] ([[User talk:Communikat|talk]]) 17:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)