User talk:Petri Krohn

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: [1] 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: [2]. 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)

And you are not one of the persons who always stood on Petri Krohn's side if those others were always against him? In fact there were comments by other persons as well, who comdemned this kind of behauvior. Legal threats are not tolerated anyway, let alone some mysterious "agency". It is dissapointing to see another one year block, he was clearly given a chance with the last 1 year block. He never learned and continued on the fanatical editing line. Digwuren, who I do not especially like either, has all rights to do his edits within all guidelines. He can't be threatened to stop editing with these serious threats. Petri Krohn was given also a chance to remove the comment without a notice to adminstrator, but he never did so. You can't just say "sorry" to adminstrators' noticeboard if you were given a chance earlier. A permanent ban would have been more appropriate. --Pudeo' 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

"And you are not one of the persons who always stood on Petri Krohn's side if those others were always against him?" - no I'm not. This is only time I have ever discussed him. If you examine Krohn's edits after his previous block, you will see that those are all constructive edits and not "a continuation of a fanatical editing line." This block is only going to be "preventive" in the sense that it will prevent this user from making hundreds of constructive edits. All this because of one unfortunate comment. Really, how does Wikipedia benefit from this long and unjustified block? They only ones who are going to benefit from it are Krohn's "opponents." Offliner (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately being jailed for Holocaust denial is not the same (as you contend by comparison) as being jailed by Russia for mere criticism of something related to Russia's Soviet past. Yours is a specious comparison. I (upper edit) welcomed Petri Krohn back despite his past accusations of ethnic fascism. I, for one, will not be traveling to Russia to try to find the graves of my grandparents in Siberia if the law passes, as I am sure I will be jailed as my identity here is not secret. That threat and those invoking it are to be taken seriously. PetersV       TALK 17:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

A visit to Russia (or even to a Russian consulate) may be a very unpleasant experience, but nobody is going to jail you there. They come after you only if they want to take over your oil company, your TV channel, your dacha (or if they are offended or think you want theirs), this is how it works in Russia. Otherwise nobody cares. Only in this sense was Petri's "warning" similar to a threat of being jailed for Holocaust denial in the country where it can never happen. I am sorry that Petri was banned, nevertheless. A topic ban would be a better option. Colchicum (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the stability is not okay now. The usual opponents of Petri, perhaps mostly some Estonian editors, are not that clean either. Lets remember that Digwuren was the other distruptive editor banned for one year last time (and just go see his block log, huh!) They will benefit for not having "an opponent" and can push for POV that fits them better. While I think Petri Krohn is a distruptive user and deserves a ban, he brought some balance to Wikipedia. Because of two completely different point of views, a compromise had to be made. Sometimes evil is for good.. --Pudeo' 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of my block log, you might have noticed my very first block was based on Petri Krohn claiming I stalked him. By the time the bogosity of the claims was confirmed and the block tweaked, I had become a proud owner of three distinct block log entries even before my first month at Wikipedia ended. And it went downhill from that. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your interest in the issue.

I believe we all agree on two things.

1. It is reasonable to believe, that if if Digwuren continued Wikipedia activities similar to those he has done in the past, he could become the target of interest of Russian authorities reporting to the Historical Truth Commission.
2. The Commission and the agencies working for it have the potential to intimidate Estonian and other Baltic editors who share Digwuren's point-of-view on Estonian historiography.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts with problem blacklisting

I just want to thank you for your bringing the blacklisting problem to my attention at User talk:Jehochman. That led to a whole chain of events that may proven to be highly useful, maybe even making worthwhile the substantial disruption involved. Sometimes "gadflies" do highly useful work, getting us moving when we've been stuck. If you need help with your block, if you wish to appeal that, I'll do what I can; you know that your statement, on which it was based, was a problem. I think that a very clear statement recognizing this, without making excuses, etc., and without defending the original action at all, would lead to a quick resolution; if it doesn't nothing would. Let others defend you, basic Wiki principle, worth keeping in mind.

If you were to strike a true statement, it does not thereby become false. It would merely mean that "I've decided that I shouldn't say this, it was a mistake." The emperor has no clothes! statement contrary to consensus struck, I apologize for the disruption.

This note was occasioned by the whitelisting of every requested link to lenr-canr.org except the one that I withdrew because that one link, much more than the others, was reasonably suspected of being copyvio. Thought you might like to know. I assume you aren't blocked at meta, and when it comes time to request delisting at meta, you could comment then, if it matters to you, but, please, avoid making unnecessary claims about editor behavior, it confuses some. I assume good faith on the part of the meta admin who blacklisted, I see no reason to proceed on any other basis.

Good luck. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel

Hi, Petri. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of London Cage

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is London Cage. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Cage. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European mailing list

ArbCom clerks: Please copy the following to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Evidence#Evidence presented by Petri Krohn. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest to drastically cut the pathos first (i.e. the "Knights and Knaves" thing; the implicit suggestion to delete all articles Piotrus (for instance) has written actually speaks against you as evidence). And add diffs to anything presented as fact (Goals, most notably). --Illythr (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact I am not proposing that we delete articles or other content created by Cabal members. What I am saying is that we should dismiss everything Cabal members have said in the course of dispute resolution. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you place the {{unblock}} request here, so you can participate in the case personally, being an involved party. Though I'd heed Illythr's advice regarding the tone of the evidence you wish to present. Óðinn ☭★ 14:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Petri Krohn

Foreword

“ No Cabal can exist without sacred knowledge.

It is indicative that so many members of this “Cabal” have here testified that they are the Keepers of The Holy Grail. They are – if I may freely quote them and their email correspondence – the Guardians of the Light of Wisdom and the recorders of the Sacred Knowledge of the Ancients.

They have revealed that their holy mission is to save the World. They have warned us of the terrible plans of the supporters of Beelzebub: Disciples of Satan are erecting a temple in Moscow. Pagans of the North are preaching a religion of hate.

They warn us that if this vicious attack by enemies of Christ and their evil assassins were to succeed, the World would fall into eternal darkness, Mongol hordes would conquer Europe and worshipers of Baal would fornicate on the streets of Rome.

Cabal members will not subject to the heresy of earthly rulers. Even now, when they have been taken prisoners and tortured by the infidels – their heels poked by hot irons – none of the Cabal members have denounced their true belief or abandoned their devotion to the True Cause. These servants of Christ must truly be enlightened by the Gnosis!

”

Translation into plain English

Cabal members have failed to endorse the fundamental principle of Wikipedia: the neutral point-of-view. Even when put under the utmost pressure, as in this ArbCom, they have stated that their narrow point-of-view should prevail over Wikipedia's NPOV.

If any member of this group had wanted to restore the Wikipedia community's trust in them, they should have done that by pointing out the valuable contributions they may have made outside the focus of attacks by the Cabal. Instead of defending their actions as Cabal members, they should have described their participation as an isolated case of misjudgment on their part. (Too late to do that now though.)

Characterization and self identification

The email group refers to themselves as the “Cabal”, their enemies are known as the “Cartel”. The archive contains at least 189 emails where the word “cabal” is used. Its thus not unreasonable to refer to them as a Cabal.

They can also be described as a conspiracy. In one email one member of the group reveals that on his email account he files all WPM related mail in a folder titled “Guy Fawkes.” It is thus reasonable to believe that at least part of the group members identify themselves with the conspirator of the Gunpowder plot to blow up the British Parliament.

It is clear from the evidence that group members have adopted tactics typically used by Internet hate groups. It may be against Wikipedia policy to publicly accuse anyone of being a hate group. However I must point out that one member of the group has on this very page accused the real life me of being a founding member of a real life “hate group”.

Goals of the Cabal

It is clear from the archive, that the goals of the mailing list were to:

• Misuse Wikipedia to influence world opinion and understanding of the history of Eastern Europe.
• Misuse Wikipedia to distort Google search results.
• Distort and falsify Wikipedia content to reflect their narrow point of view.
• Misuse Wikipedia to slander real life people.
• Wage personal war against their perceived Wikipedia opponents.

To achieve these goals the members of the group did or conspired to do the following:

• Disrupted Wikipedia processes by secretly coordinating their editing activities.
• Used traditional hate group tactics to attack and slander their opponents.
• Conspired to produce a false illusion of consensus.
• Gamed the system in their favor to win any “dispute”.
• Used and planned to use sock and meatpuppets to achieve false consensus and to circumvent blocks and bans.
• Used and planned to use administrator and checkused privileges to to attack their opponents and disrupt Wikipedia.
• Used software tools to harass their opponents

Their actions have caused serious and possibly unrecoverable harm to the the credibility of Wikipedia.

Long pattern of harassment

The email list is only a part of long pattern of harassment. The current formation of the Cabal is the merger of the secret Estonian group and the secret Polish group, both of which have operated far longer than the WPM mailing list. Previous ArbCom cases have been presented with evidence of the use of instant messaging channels by Piotrus to coordinate on-wiki activities. Digwuren entered Wikipedia with an army of meat-puppets from Estonia.

The conspiracy to deceive may be much larger than this email list. Only the most trusted members of the conspiracy were invited into its inner circle, the “Cabal” i.e. the mail list. The evidence in the mail list archive shows, that willingness to participate in off-wiki coordination of reverts and edits was not a sufficient condition for invitation to the mailing list. Far more important was the trustworthiness of the candidates not to reveal the existence of the list or its content. The fact that some editor is not included in the subscriber list does not mean that he was not involved in coordinated tag-team activity. Other communication channels were available to list members and coordinators.

Use of software tools to harass editors

The Digwuren group has a long history of the use of software tools to attack Wikipedia and its editor.

In May 2007 Digwuren started stalking me and systematically reverting my every edit, often in less than ten minutes. It was clear to me that this activity was only possible with the help of automated tools to follow my edits. Evidently he was receiving some kind of RSS feed of my edit history.

The latest incarnation of these tools is the “Wikipedia metrics” server. The server is dedicated to attacks on Wikipedia and harassment of its editors. It contains information on the edit histories of all Wikipedia users. As pointed out in one of the emails, a link to the server was at least once publicly posted on Wikipedia (WP:AN/I) as proof of Russavia's nocturnal editing pattern, in an attempt to “prove” that more than one person is using his Wikipedia account.

The server also hosts the GNU Mailman program serving the WPM mailing list. According to the WHOIS record, the domain name was created on 2008-10-23. The WHOIS record also shows the domain belonging to the real life person known on Wikipedia as User:Digwuren.

Digwuren socks

Digwuren has the skills and networking resources to operate an army of untraceable sock-puppets from his bedroom.

Two years ago I warned, that if Digwuren was for one reason or other banned from Wikipedia, he would still control his army of meat-puppets using secret off-wiki communication. The archive shows that even though Digwuren has “withdrawn” from Wikipedia, he still controls large parts of it through his email lists. His potential inability to create new content and have it attributed to him is not a problem to him – as far as I know he has never contributed a notable amount of original content.

WP:DIGWUREN

In WP:DIGWUREN the Arbitration Committee tried to apply dispute resolution to a case that fundamentally is not a dispute, but a (criminal?) conspiracy to attack Wikipedia.

It should be noted that the remedies have totally failed. They have not been able to ban a single member of the cabal of liars. At the same time they have lead to blocks and bans on at least ten independent-minded editors.

In fact the remedies have become nothing more but a tool for the Cabal to attack their victims. They have made it practically impossible for an independent editor to live by; to the Cabal they are just a tool to block and ban their opponent faster that ever.

Knights and Knaves

To understand and recognize cabals one must look at Wikipedia as an island of Knights and Knaves. As defined by Raymond Smullyan, knights always tell the truth whereas knaves always lie. By definition, cabalists act like knaves, they will always lie. If any statement made by cabal members were to have a truth value other than false, it is only by coincidence, or – more likely – as part of a master plan to propagate a yet bigger lie.

As in Smullyan's world, on Wikipedia it is difficult to identify the “knaves” from the “kights”, our cabalists lie with such consistency. For the uninformed it is thus almost impossible distinguish between the parties in any fabricated “dispute”. On the other hand, a single proven lie is enough to expose the whole cabal. Everything said by them is thus proven as lies.

As this ArbCom closes we should consider any evidence given and statements made by members of this "Cabal" in the course of dispute resolution as lies and without any value.

Wikipedia and its procedures are critically dependent on the personal integrity of its editors. Wikipedia expects editors to behave like knights. Exposure and expulsion of knaves and liars is thus of utmost importance.

Example of knave activity

An early example of knave-like activity by this Cabal is the fake RfC Digwuren filed against me in 2007, which was dismissed as unsubstantiated. Cabal members would subscribe to lies and slander, while any neural observer would see that the accusations have no substance. Supporting the slander thus becomes sufficient evidence of cabal membership. The RfC was presented as evidence against Digwuren in the original WP:DIGWUREN case. ArbCom members failed to identify the liars.

Knave management

An extreme example of knave management was presented by Boris Beizer. On his courses on software testing he regularly bragged about the time he got fired. As project leader of a large software project he ordered the administrator of the source code management system (CVS?) to irretrievably expunge and obliterate all code written by a particular programmer, and to destroy all possible backup copies of the material – only weeks before the final deadline of the project. The knavish programmer had been caught cheating; he had falsified one module test report on his piece of code. Beizer felt that the mistrust created by this individual on module tests would jeopardize any higher level testing efforts and would lead to project failure.

Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park)

As evidence of the Cabals recent activities I will only bring up one minor issue.

The group successfully inserted hate speech into the article on the Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) and edit warred over its inclusion, claiming that people of East Berlin regularly referred to the memorial as the “Tomb of the Unknown Rapist.” The insult may be difficult for English speakers to understand. For comparison, it would be like tweaking the article on the Statue of Liberty to include a chapter stating that New Yorkers regularly refer to the statue as “Hitler's filthy whore”.

Exceptionally, this material was supported by “references”, in this case the references were however falsified. It took an enormous effort by Beatle Fab Four and Russavia to prove that the cited material did not contain the claimed disinformation.

On substance: occupation theory

For future arbitration enforcement it is important to understand what exactly is the “sacred knowledge” that Cabal members want to promote.

The position of the Digwuren group is that the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were under Soviet military occupation from 1940 to 1991. Thus, in their view, the Soviet Republic of Estonia becomes a WP:POVFORK of Soviet occupation of Estonia.

Its antithesis is the position taken by the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee; that this “occupation theory” is hate speech targeted at the civil and political rights of the Russophone minority. If I understand correctly this position has also been taken by Alexander Dyukov and his Historical Memory Foundation and will most likely be taken by the Russian Historical Truth Commission.

Reasonable opposition to the Digwuren position does not deny that troop movements and placements of 1940 can in the right context be called military occupation as opposed to “revolution” and “military bases agreement” – as pre-1991 Estonian sources would describe them.

And to spell this out for people unfamiliar with the issue: No reliable contemporary source describes the events in Estonia in June 1940 as “military occupation”, this includes the free Estonian press (I do have photocopies of the contemporary newspapers covering the events.). The Baltic occupation theory is a legal and political interpretation of the events, based on a retrospective analysis of the facts. Wikipedia cannot take a stand on the correctness of this interpretation. Least of all should we discuss it on ArbCom.

True occupation theorist, like this Cabal, will extend this political interpretation to the 1944 liberation of Estonia as well as the whole period from 1940 to 1991, equating the Soviet Republic of Estonia to “Soviet occupation of Estonia”.

...and why is all this so damn important to the Cabal and its opponents? Because it is at the core of the inter-ethnic conflict in Estonia and Latvia.

If the Arbitration Committee were to rule on content, it should state that the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states from 1940 to 1991 is a point-of-view and cannot be presented as a fact. In the future, any anonymous editor presenting the “Soviet occupation” as fact – as opposed to a point-of-view – should be considered a sock puppet of User:Digwuren and banned on sight.

Possible remedies

The Arbitration Committee should issue a public apology to Ghirlandajo and Irpen for its failure to deal with the Digwuren issue earlier, asking them to rejoin the English language Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia foundation should issue a press release, apologizing to the public for the fact that Wikipedia coverage of Eastern European issues has been severely distorted by the activities of a conspiracy to hijack Wikipedia.

Legal issues

It is possible that the activities described in the archives may constitute a criminal offense in several jurisdictions. It cannot be ruled out that the archive was seized by law enforcement officials working on a criminal investigation – after obtaining proper authorization from the courts. The argument that the claimed “hackers” acted unlawfully would thus become null and void.

In the future the Wikimedia foundation might be advised to use the protection and services of the US law enforcement agencies combating Internet crime to protect its servers from coordinated attacks by groups using tactics similar to those described in the email archive.

Evidence added

Your evidence section has been copied as requested. Manning (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - I'm only a trainee clerk and I'm sorry but I've moved a bit too quick here. Your evidence will be visible once it has been reviewed by a confirmed clerk. Manning (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up. Your evidence was reviewed by the clerking body and I regret to inform you it has been rejected. "It is beyond the 1,000 word limit, contains no differences, and appears to primarily be made up of your interpretations of the case. For suggestions on acceptable evidence see <Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence." Manning (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Lester Coleman Part 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Lester_Coleman

You may want to jump in with an opinion. —Merry Yellow (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

So, any plans for the new year?

Hi, Petri. I trust you have been following the EEML saga at arbcom. Do you intend to ask to be unblocked as Coren suggested you might try?

In ay case, all my best wishes for XMas and the New Year!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you, guys! --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Eero Saarinen and Florence Knoll Bassett.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Eero Saarinen and Florence Knoll Bassett.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Maybe you should just fix the vandalism at Eero Saarinen. --Petri Krohn (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Plymouth Suburban

I have nominated Plymouth Suburban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  Sandstein  14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy John Uvwiefenigwere

I prodded this article that you worked on before. I couldn't find any sources. Your welcome to remove this prod. 158.70.145.156 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

New patents

Lets see how these templates works:

• US Patent No. 7653914 – Handling different service versions in a server, United States Patent N:o 7,653,914 issued to Krohn, et al. on January 26, 2010
• Handling different service versions in a server – Google Patents seems to be lagging behind.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xeno^talk 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Castle Village floor plan.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Castle Village floor plan.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello

I'm not sure if you are still here but your ban has ended as of May 29 and you can resume editing. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Another one for your funny hatnotes list

• Anal language [3]

  Not to be confused with Anus language

• Anus language [4]

  Not to be confused with Anal language

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

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)

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)

Life forms

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

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

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)

Reference for that axe

It's a self-published book, see [5]. Not a reliable source. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

WP:NPA

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

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorate_of_Livonia&diff=377963112&oldid=377813621
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Governorate_of_Estonia&diff=377962959&oldid=377813373

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Kray, miy ridniy kray

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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 [6]. 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)

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)

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)

Thanks

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

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)

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)

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)

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#Communicat 2. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)