User talk:Petri Krohn

Krajina Towns Again

Hi there. If you remember some time ago there was an issue with the Krajina town catory. We have yet another problem and another vote as some Croats are not happy with this topic existing. Please add a vote or some input. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Towns_in_the_Former_RSK Thanks. (LAz17 (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC))

Kola Inlet redirect

While reading about WWII Lend Lease I noticed your redirect for Kola Inlet leads to Kola Peninsula, but the Kola Peninsula article has no information on Kola Inlet. Do you have specific information what Kola Inlet is? Thanks. -Rolypolyman (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

picture: Bona_Sforza_young.jpg

Hi, Petri. Is it possible to get any more information about the original, where is the original colored picture placed? Thanks.--wikipit (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Advice to visitors

This is the talk page of a user who has left Wikipedia. There is no reason to suppose he still follows this page. You stand a better chance contacting him using e-mail or the links given on his user page. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GNW

Even if I don't necessary agree with your line of argumentation, I believe that there should be some consistency in the template and the article names as well. Perhaps you might like to follow up my query on Template talk:Campaignbox Great Northern War? It might help solve the brewing edit war. —Zalktis (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back...

Or welcome home? I was pleasantly surprised. Seems like you always manage to prove me wrong. One day you will be a major admin and burocrat, but on which wiki? Good advice you gave to Nikitn, too bad he did not take it seriously. Can I invite you to delete my comment above? - looks rather embarassing now, but for me, of course. Again, welcome. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Grengam

Can you please take a look at what mess this article has turned into. It's just ridiculus the way it looks like now. Närking (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks, doin' my best. Any suggestions to consolidate the incompatible POVs would be welcome. --Illythr (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Yes, I saw it. I will try to do something about it. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that it's not needed with two articles here. The difference what actually happened isn't that big. The problem here has been that one editor hasn't been able to compromise at all, which we saw when he came back from a 24h block and said it was a compromise to have two separate articles. Närking (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, in a way it is - when two POVs are irreconcilable, the best way to begin is to present them in parallel, giving due weight to the more accepted one and then try to "sew" the common points together. After than - hope for a really authoritative source to arrive... --Illythr (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I. M. Pei

Please stop. Do not revert blindly. You are making a huge mistake, and you are being extremly careless -Pagepage3242342 (talk) 07:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What a disaster. Please review I.M. Pei again to see what that page as become since June 2007. -Pagepage3242342 (talk) 07:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Protector of the Holy Sepulchre

It wasn't a real title; Godfrey called himself "duke" instead of "king" (since he was already a duke in Europe), and "protector of the Holy Sepulchre" was just a description, not a formal title. It's explained on Godfrey of Bouillon and elsewhere. I don't think it has anything to do with the Crimean War though. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Grengam and Poltava

Björnebacke (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Can you please explain to me why that Nikitn is given free hands to edit Poltava in about the same way as I edited Grengam?

User Nikitn (talk · contribs) has not been given free hands to do anything. From the comment above and your edit itself it is clear that you disrupted Wikipedia only to prove a point. I have reverted your unfounded edit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You fail to see what I mean, why can't Swedish sources be presented in Grengam in the battle box but Russian sources can in the Poltava article. WHY?

Björnebacke (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Edward Harper

Ihmettelit miksi Edward Harper on samalla listalla Osama bin Ladenin kanssa. Asiaan on selitys. Kuten murhista epäiltyjen FBI:n kymmenen listalla, myös todennäköisten seksuaalirikollisten katsotaan olevan erittäin vaarallisia, mikä on täysin ymmärrettävää. FBI on halunnut näyttää että seksuaalirikollisten kiinniottaminen on merkittävää siinä missä murhaajienkin. Karppinen (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edits

I think your recent edits on Russia-related articles are neutral and fair enough. Thanks, I appreciate that.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hate speech

Hi Petri, I know why you have created the hate speech template, and I somewhat agree with the sentiments, but wouldn't it be better to remove hate speech on sight, rather than adding an inline template to it; particularly when it is WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE hate speech such as on that article? --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against removing hate speech and other inflamatory or offending text on sight. (As I did here to United Nations Buffer Zone in Cyprus.) This kind of content however tends to reappear, often inserted by tag teams, that will edit war for ever to have their content restored. It is not a good idea to engage in edit wars over this content. Wikipedia has more mature editors that can restore the text and administrators who will deal with the repeat offenders. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Link to blog

User:Martintg has taken it upon himself to link to a blog, under no circumstances are you under any obligation to confirm nor deny it. In fact, Martintg is technically in breach of general provisions of the Digwuren arbcom, in which it is clearly stated: 8) All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee. This applies both to the parties to this case as well as to any other editor that may choose to engage in such conduct. It is up to you whether to report it or not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're grasping at straws here, desperately trying to find something wrong with Martintg's work. Both this charge as well as the earlier charge of "outing Petri Krohn" are quite frankly misinterpretations of the policy and the ruling.

That having been said, I do not approve or support the writings of Petri Krohn or Leena Hietanen on that blog. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Confusing "theory" with "conjecture"

The term "theory" in science means a consistent framework that no observations have ever contradicted. "Theory" in common parlance means "conjecture" or "speculation". You !vote at Talk:Hydrino theory mistakenly takes the common parlance meaning of the term when it is the scientific meaning that is problematic. I agree with you that hydrinos do not exist. However, it is inappropriate to indicate their lack of existence using an equivocal term that means the exact opposite in the scientific context. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

KGB Internet Troll Squad badge

You might be interested to know that ArbCom doesn't appreciate KGB badges on userpages. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite convinced that [1] is an appropriate reaction. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nonradiation

Hi Petri, I've botched some changes trying to make the nonradiation page live. Holversb (talk) 21:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Help with Estonia

I'd help you, but I need an alternate version that is factually supported with many additional sources. Or are you advocating taking out the entire paragraph? An "alternate version" is the first step. Once we have that then we being the process of wearing down the opposition. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Occupation

Partitioned Poland was obviously garrisoned by military troops of the partitioners. I am not sure I understand your question? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(Let's keep this on your talk page! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Anti-X'ism

Hi, thanks for reminding me of the problem with the backlinks to Anti-Hellenism. The offending template was {{Racism topics}}, I've removed the entry from there (it should never have been there in the first place.) I don't think deletion of the redirect would have been the proper solution here though. Anyway, in general I'm quite eye to eye with you on the overall problem of the Anti-X'ism articles. I've fought to have quite a number of them deleted, in fact. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable Gaels

Seeing as you've taken the bother to reinsert this section you'll no doubt want to get started on the considerable task of actually referencing it so that it looks vaguely encyclopedic and notable rather than the subjective, unreferenced section dictated by personal POV it inarguably is at the moment. Cheers. siarach (talk)

I do not have time to play games, but I do find the list usefull. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

And since when has "being useful to Petri Krohn" been a legitimate (sole) criteria for the inclusion of information/a certain format on wikipedia and an argument AGAINST having articles and facts properly referenced and NPOV? If you've no interest in resolving a dispute which you yourself started i'll leave the list up (with the reference/pov/fact tags) for a time - out of courtesy - to give someone the chance to improve it and make it somewhat encyclopedic but if noone sorts it out it will be deleted again. siarach (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gee.... he's a reader, so it's an example of the project being useful to a reader. Obviously, that's not the "sole criterion," but he didn't say that, you did, An Siarach. I find lists like that useful and, when I have time, I try to source them, not delete them. But others prefer deletion, even if sourcing is possible. Different strokes, different folks. --Abd (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC on " Astobiological Potential "

Is what is happening here what I think is happening here? 198.163.53.11 (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's IP canvassing spam from a City of Winnipeg network. Make what you will of that. . dave souza, talk 12:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

belated condolences and welcome back.

Petri, I had occasion to review your history, because of comments I was making on the meta spam blacklist talk page, and saw the one-year ban. Trying to figure out why you were banned, looking for arguments in the ArbComm case, my jaw dropped, so to speak. There may be, of course, a lot more than I saw, but ... my condolences. Sometimes I wonder if this place is worth the effort. Still, one step at a time.... --Abd (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Count of Schoran?

I have no idea who the Count of Schoran is or was; those accounts seem mostly inactive.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a hoax. We do not even have an article on Schoran. Then again, someone suspected that Prince John Obolensky was a hoax. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Google31-01-2009.png

Thanks for uploading File:Google31-01-2009.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think File:Malware.jpg may in fact be better. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Isabella of Naples

Dear Petri Krohn, I noticed that you edited the page of Isabella of Naples some time ago. You added that she is the heir of the claim to the title King of Jerusalem. Where did you find that information? HollyML14 (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not know or remember where the information came from, I edited the article over three years ago, at that time Wikipedia was not as well sourced as it should have been. Anyway, the inheritance goes like this: Isabella of Naples inherited the title from his father Alfonso II of Naples and passed it on to her daughter Bona Sforza and granddaughter Catherine Jagellon of Poland. See the Maternal ancestors section of the article on Catherine Jagellon for the family tree. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that line of succession of the claim. However, the Aragonese of Naples themselves never claimed to be Kings or Queens of Jerusalem. Either they were not aware of it or they did not care. The Brienne claim seems to be a rather theoretical construct, which may deserve its own page but not necessarily an entry on each page of the members of the dynasty. HollyML14 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Uragan class monitor

On February 20, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uragan class monitor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 22:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Crimes

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

Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ACMA Censorship

Hi Petri. Thanks for trying to clean up the reference a bit. I can't make edits right now, but will make this suggestion here. Perhaps you will agree. your change

The web page — #6 of a series of pages featuring images of aborted fetuses — had been secretly prohibited by the ACMA

Isn't future proof, as #6 as a reference is dynamically generated and if someone inserts a reference higher in the page it will no longer be #6.

I suggest one of the following: leave it as a deep link, and put it on "the page". Leave abortion.tv there and link it, or revert back to "website" and link that to abortion.tv.

Alternatively, if you particularly feel it is better as a reference ( I don't! ) then put the #6 reference right after the text "page", which will help indicate that reference is the page itself. But honestly, this isn't a reference this is a source item; it's not something a person goes to so they can validate a reference, it is the thing itself. That is what hyperlinks are, afterall. But either way, if you could address the #6 not being future proof somehow that would be appreciated. --121.91.100.82 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Lex Coleman

I think you made a poor decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lex Coleman‎. The article on Lex Coleman claims that it is an entirely different person than Lester Coleman. Please see my comments there.Nrswanson (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Phaistos Disc

Thanks for your cooperation. Eisenberg is very good at getting publicity, but he does have a financial interest I'd argue, and we need reliable sources either saying 'yeah', maye, or nope (and that could happen but the point is it hasn't yet, which is perhaps significant). dougweller (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On the fascinating phenomenon of convergence

I presume you understand what I'm trying to do. If it suits your plans -- well, all the better.

Wikipedia's goals converging, we're looking at a win-win-win scenario. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you don't find my arguments here convincing? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Shipping Company

I've added back New Patiala Transport Co. as it is a notable company in India, which still needs to be expanded upon in Wikipedia. WikiEditor 09111 (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to create an article on New Patiala Transport Co.. Searching through the web, I did not find it notable. Most important, it does not seem to operate ships. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

COI

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Johan Bäckman, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Martintg (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3

You are mentioned in an RfC as having tried to resolve a dispute over use of admin tools while the admin is involved. The RfC was certified, but the user has withdrawn his certification, so the RfC will be deleted after 48 hours. Please review and certify if you consider the RfC proper. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lester Coleman

Hi there. I see you undid a recent archive of the talk page. This is not a good idea. Once a legal threat was made I took the issue to WP:ANI. User:Ricky81682 is an admin responding to the issue at the Administrators noticeboard. It was decided to warn the anon IP about making legal threats and archive the conversation so as not to continue to perpetuate a hoax/encourage further conflict.Nrswanson (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Um... I think you need to calm down. First, I don't think any comment I have made on your talk page has been harrassment. I merely alerted you to problems I percieved in an attempt to create further productive dialogue. I have not been hostile in any way towards you. My comments have been made calmly and rationally. Second, I think you have misinterpreted my position. I am not advocating that professor Lex Coleman is not Lester Coleman. On the contrary, I strongly suspect that they are. I just don't think there is any evidence directly connecting the two. Until there is we can't make that claim. As I have said over and over again, we only state what is "verifiably true". I also don't think there are twins. I think there is just Lester Coleman. That is why I have stongly argued against the twins assertion. My general comment to you is that you tend to jump to conclusions and make assertions on evidence that is not reliable. Some of these assumptions are most likely accurate, but in order to follow WP:BLP guidelines we can't assume anything. Second, please read WP:SPA. I have created literally 100s of articles on wikipedia and have made over 30,000 edits to wikipedia. Not exactly a single purpose account. Finally, I didn't ignore the legal threat at all. On the contrary, I took the issue to WP:ANI because I took it seriously. The decision to archive was made by an admin at the noticeboard where I took the legal threat to. I trusted the admins experience in the matter. I think your decission to un-archive was ill-advised but I won't undo it again. If there is anything else you would like me to clarify please ask. Cheers.Nrswanson (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Clear up identity confusion

Hi Petri,

Are you Petri Krohn of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee? Martintg (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Petri, please refer also to WP:OUTING. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, please note that WP:COI and WP:NPOV - and NPOV is core 5 Pillars policy - require that anyone who can legitimately be considered as being an involved real life party to an article they edit should make such links clear. Editing under a username on an article which has links to that real life name when they are not that person is also a matter of concern. Lastly, WP:OUTING is irrelevant; If they are that Petri Krohn of the FA-FC, they have already outed themselves, as indeed if they are another Petri Krohn, and if they are some other name outside Wikipedia then they are not being asked what it is. At the moment, COI/NPOV are the more relevant policies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry LessHeard, but given the amount of rubbish that has been directed towards this editor in the past, WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS are entirely relevant. Please don't justify the past rubbish by editors. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, User_talk:Alex_Bakharev/Archive23#Tomb_of_the_unknown_rapist demonstrates the attempts at WP:OUTING and WP:HARRASS dating back to December 2008 (and probably before that, given the people involved). This has to be taken into account with the current crusade. So again, please do not justify harrassment of other editors, regardless of current issues. I will also note, I was blocked for 2 weeks for placing a COI template on another editor's talk page, yet nothing happens here. Take note of that. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I might suggest adopting WP:AGF and desisting in WP:Wikilawyering may be a more beneficial approach. Martintg (talk) 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Russavia, I have certainly welcomed Petri back happily, except for his (IMO) misguided POV on the Baltics, he has a long history of positive contributions. Please don't presume to speak for past situations which quite frankly you have completely NOT been involved in and completely have NO editorial stake. Martintg deserves a simple and honest answer to his simple and honest question. Your WP:ALPHABETSOUP is wholly inappropriate and is representative of the harrassment you so easily accuse others of. PetersV       TALK 18:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Douglas Tottle NPOV

Dear Sir, perhaps you might use your extensive knowledge to help rounding out this article, to make it more balanced? What we would really need is some solid, scholarly sources to support/back Tottle's position. I honestly can't seem to find any. —Zalktis (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Engines

I'm afraid I can't help you with that one, have you tried asking the guys who maintain the steam engine page?

The Passaics are listed as having vibrating lever engines but the Russians may have used an entirely different powerplant. "Humphries" might have been a British mechanic, I doubt any of the Humphries you mention were responsible for the engine type you mention. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(Moved discussion to User talk:Gatoclass#Horizontal return connecting rod engine? + Thanks. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Sockpuppetry accusations

Just to let you know: Biophys believes that I'm your sockpuppet. Offliner (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know — and welcome to Wikipedia! Have you been here for long? I have never come across you before, except that I have seen your name on the edit histories of some problem articles.

Is it true, that you also edit from Finland? I thought you were from Russia. If not, then Wikipedia must have lost its last Russian edistor. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

invitation

Please accept this invite to join the Bilateral relations task force, a subproject of WikiProject International relations dedicated to improving country relation related articles. Simply click here to accept!

I noticed your work on some of the x-y relation articles, you maybe interested in this new wikiproject.

You may also be interested in Article Rescue Squadron. Ikip (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability criteria

Petri, I really would like to sort through your thinking on the notability of bilateral relations. Now, I don't disagree that embassies have some notability to them. However, if that's the only thing two states share, then that fact is always going to be recorded elsewhere: we have two exhaustive sets of lists regarding diplomatic missions, by sending country and by receiving country. So the facts are already there. If you want to know whether X has an embassy in Y, you look at the list. There's really no need for a stub to tell us the same thing.

Regarding state visits, I could not disagree more. Sure, a visit makes the news, but what relevance does it really have? We wouldn't, for instance, mention it in the visitor's biography, so why say it because we have this series of nonsense articles? A handful of state visits are indeed notable, like the 1972 Nixon visit to China. But the vast majority come and go, are purely symbolic events, and not really within our scope. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The report

Sorry for submitting an SPI report that turned out to be wrong. I hope on a good collaboration with you in the future.Biophys (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Stalinism categorization

Hi, in case you're interested in discussing the monthly nomination in favor of deleting the Category:Neo-Stalinism and Category:Neo-Stalinist organisations, they're up for debate here. Well, the pretty much all-encompassing rationale (lol) might give things a bit more momentum on this occasion. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Colombia–Ireland relations

I saw this AfD, which caught my interest, then got side-tracked into mini-bios of Irish participants in the Colombian wars of independence: James Towers English, James Rooke, William Aylmer and Francisco Burdett O'Connor, then further side-tracked to Mariano Montilla and Pedro Antonio Olañeta. John Devereux (con artist) and Francisco Tomás Morales are obvious gaping holes, and I suppose others will appear. But to go back to the AfD, now in day 6, any comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

your vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre

You said that there are mainstream Japanese news sources. However given the tendency for the Japanese towards historical revisionism, these sources are obviously much less than reliable. Should we allow Wikipedia to be a medium for their propoganda? It is a POV fork redundant to Nanking Massacre controversy, created by a single purpose POV pusher account. Please reconsider your vote. See also Holocaust denial, which is akin to what this article is doing, since its lead says that the massacre was fake. There's a reason it's not called Alleged fabrication of the Holocaust. 173.66.46.47 (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Restoration of hoax

Hi, why did you deliberately restore hoax material to Immemorial nobility? Drawn Some (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Immemorial nobility! Why do you suspect the material is a hoax? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

COI at Chinese Drywall

Hi Petri - what do you see as the remaining COI at 2009 Chinese drywall controversy? We've chased the spamming lawyers, toned down the health-danger claims, and documented that the defects really exist. I don't see anything else on the talk page, perhaps I've overlooked something, is there still an issue that needs addressing? Best, CliffC (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice.

Hello, Petri Krohn. 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. The thread is Threat by User:Petri_Krohn. Thank you. //roux   09:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

New law

Hi, for someone who's never been involved with either yourself, Digwuren or your case before, could you explain to an idiot precisely what this new law will ban? It's not quite clear from reading people's discussion. Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 21:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to start an article on the subject, but I now see that User:Digwuren has beaten me to it, see Historical Truth Commission. I have not yet read the article, so I am not sure how accurate or objective it is. Basically the commission and the law intend to criminalize certain forms of history falsification. Digwuren and the commission have very different views – in fact opposing views on what constitutes falsification of history. Digwuren has included doctor Alexander Reshideovich Dyukov in his template {{Falsification of history}}. At the same time Dyukov was one of the members of the workgroup drafting the law that created the commission. I guess it would be fair to say that Digwuren's point-of-view on Estonian history is what the commission would most likely consider criminal falsification of history. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarifying! ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Mosedschurte ANI

When you have some free time, could you try finding some diffs for his non-neutral editing? I will do the same in the next 24 hours. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have not followed his edits to existing articles or edit warring. What I find non-neutral is his original contributions. Many of them are listed in his template {{Eastern Bloc}}. These include Eastern Bloc politics and Eastern Bloc economies. I believe that these are WP:Walled gardens of POV and WP:POVFORKs of material that should be covered someplace else. What is clear from his contributions is that he sees the world from a narrow cold-warrior point-of-view. The extremely high quality of his contributionns / propaganda makes one think that he is not a individual unpaid editor but a collective account of a conservative think-tank. It is very difficult to criticize him for his well referenced article. The argument I would use is this, he has failed to understand or embrace the central policy of Wikipedia: WP:NPOV. We cannot expect NPOV to arise from edit warring between different points-of-view. On Wikipedia everyone must aim forward neutrality and be prepared to write for the enemy. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: Anton Incident

Hi.

One thing: That's my old account name. I've been using my new username (InfiniteHunter) since 16 May 2009. Anything done with my old account (Kingalex56) has no connection to me whatsoever. You might have gotten confused since User talk:Kingalex56 redirects to User talk:InfiniteHunter. Also, all edits done to the Anton Incident page are listed in the history as being modified by Kingalex56, not InfiniteHunter.InfiniteHunter (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Then who is Kingalex56 (talk · contribs)? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving discussion to User talk:InfiniteHunter#User Kingalex56. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right

You were completely right with your comments at WP:AN. I wrote a few comments about the AN/ANI drama here.

Digwuren is good at doing his stuff. Take a look at this for example: Russian influence operations in Estonia. First of all, the name of the article is wrong; the existence of such operations is not a generally accepted fact. Second, the lead is completely biased. It's probably WP:OR as well; I do not know which source it is from, and Digwuren keeps removing my fact-tags and refuses to answer my question on the talk page. Third, in the whole article KAPO's claims are stated as facts without attribution to KAPO. I've tried to add some balancing material, but the whole article is still biased and in breach of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, etc.

I'm not sure there is much I can do to fight such bias. Digwuren has many friends, so my edits can be reverted as many times as needed. Technically, it is correct, as they will then have the majority ("consensus") in those articles. Even if one article slowly gets improved a little (such as Safka's article,) he will soon create another one, and it's tiring to having to start all over. Russavia seems to have gotten fed up as well, and the others who are trying to fix the articles get labelled as "professional edit warriors" and their edits are immediately reverted.

On the positive side, Johan Bäckman, Anti-Russian sentiment, etc. have indeed improved a little, and Russian influence operations in Estonia - after the AfD - gets about as many hits per day as my userpage, so probably the harm done by its bias to the outside world is minimal. Offliner (talk) 01:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

See, I cannot do anything in this article: [2] Offliner (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is crazy. It seems that I'm not allowed to add anything to the Bäckman article: [3]. My additions were from a reliable source, and Bäckman's views certainly are relevant to Bäckman article, just as the Estonian criticism of him (that the article is so full of.) Obviously, it is Martintg and his friends who decide what can be added and what not. Is there anything that can be done? Offliner (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Krone-Schmalz is well known to toe the Kremlin line. Her interviews on South Ossetia, for example, are quite illuminating of her POV. She can only be presented as a journalist overtly sympathetic to the Russian position on conflicts. Shoving her POV in as was done as a presumably objective dispassionate party (she's German after all) is not an appropriate edit. PetersV       TALK 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Uragan class monitor

Thanks for your note. It looks like there are several other sources for the same assertion, which isn't particularly extraordinary to being with. Is there really a need to use poor sources for the article?   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 year

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

Based on this discussion, and your comments to Digwuren, I've unfortunately blocked you 1 year. Please feel free to appeal to either the Arbcom or with an unblock request here. And please, please, leave the nationalism stuff at the door. It is patently unhelpful and unacceptable. rootology/equality 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Need any help, Petri? (Note to other editors: The block above would appear to be punitive, not preventative. It was issued after Petri Krohn had refactored his alleged threat, and there was no ongoing threat. There was an apparent pile-on of content opponents at the AN/I discussion, which is one reason why AN/I can be a poor place to decide a ban. However, there was also reason for concern about the alleged threat; there is enough concern that it may be reasonable to consider this an indef block, indef as in "pending final decision"; I'm a bit concerned about Rootology's request that the ban not be overturned without "consensus," which can prejudice the formation of an independent appraisal. I would suggest a voluntary topic ban by Petri Krohn, as specified by Rootology, and on pain of immediate reblock if there is a violation, as determined by Rootology unless Rootology recuses, with release from the actual block, so that he can defend himself in an RfC, which would be more appropriate than AN/I to make a decent decision, given the apparent lack of emergency.) I see no sign of disruptive editing outside the particular problem area. But I haven't seen everything, for sure. It would be up to Rootology, until consensus decides otherwise. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a suggestion and simple request by me so that the situation, since it may be grave, gets a full bilateral review. My admin actions, like any others not involving BLP or Arbcom decisions, are never sacrosanct. rootology/equality 17:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Abd put it very well above and I agree with what he said. The block appers punitive, not preventive. I did not perceive Krohn's words as a threat in any way. The "consensus" on AN/I consisted for the most part of all the editors Krohn has previously had a dispute with dropping by and (naturally) demanding a block. After his previous 1 year block Krohn had been on a good behaviour; he had not edit warred or made any personal attacks. To me it is very disconcerting that Krohn gets blocked after uttering one sentence misunderstood as a threat, when on the other hand User:Digwuren (whose personal attacks and abuse of article talk pages were the target of the original WP:AN report that caused Krohn to make his remarks, and who also recently returned from a one year block, and who - in contrast - has edit warred and made personal attacks after his block) doesn't even get a simple warning. To me, this is an apalling, unjustified block which also seems to be telling of a certain anti-Russian bias in Wikipedia. Had Krohn said: "if you deny the holocaust in the United States, you may get persecuted by the authorities and jailed" then there would have been no problem at all, although that line has exactly the same meaning as what Krohn said. But no, since he talked about (evil) Russia, everyone immediately assumes he is threatening Digwuren with some kind of KGB assassins who are running around the world murdering everyone who disagrees with the dictator. This block also seems to confirm the effectiveness of block shopping: after Krohn's unfortunate words we immediately saw more than 5 of his opponents drop in and demand a long block (they even lied in the process by claiming that "Digwuren has been on a good behaviour after his block, but Krohn has not" - which is not true.) One year block because of one misunderstood sentence which Krohn later corrected and even removed? This seems to be one of worst blocks I've ever seen. Offliner (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)