User talk:Petri Krohn/Archive 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


peter minuit

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

The source is the Peter Minuit article itself. -- Petri Krohn 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is another source: [1] -- Petri Krohn 06:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Åbo Kungliga Akademi

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

Red links

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

Huemul Project

  1. What do you mean by <<the Argnetinian secret research project on nuclear fission in 1949.>>?
  2. You took off the nuclear fusion category from the Huemul Project article stating that it is not physics.
  3. Now do you mean Huemul was fission, rather than fusion, and fission is not physics?
  4. Shouldn't the date be an interval rather than a single year?
Please, clarify and/or correct Jclerman 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  1. I suppose the projecty was secret. Do you disagree?
  1. I did not remove this or any other category from the Huemul Project article. I removed the link to Huemul Project from the See also section in the article Nuclear fusion. You are welcome to reintroduce it, but I would not advice puting it on the first place.
Please re-introduce it, and do it in the place you deem correct. I'm not going to change it.
  1. The Huemul Project did not or could not have achived fusion nor fission. The article is interesting from the historical point of view but has little value from the pure physics point of view.
That is IYHO, not in the humble opinion of others who are reviewing the physics and political background of the project in the international literature.

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

History, especially in relationship with nuclear research, is in the humble understanding of others, important as not to repeat similar mistakes, e.g., re proliferation.
  1. I corrected the year 1948 to 1949 in the Nahuel Huapi National Park article. I do not know how long the Huemul facility oprated, so I can not add an end year.
The project was terminated in 1952. The online links to the articles in Physics Today refer to it.
  • MORE about the project:
It was intended to produce fusion and you have been referring to it as fission in many articles. As you should remember in which ones, please change it back to the appropriate term.

Jclerman 01:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


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

Petri Krohn 00:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Only the authors can make such decision. The article will be a composite by several contributors. Frequent vandalism in the article page required we work in a sandbox. Jclerman 01:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Gay bathhouse

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

zero-point energy

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

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


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

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

Alco HH series

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

This is important and encyclopedic. The ALCO HH series is central in the development of diesel-electric technology, an area that is otherwise very poorly covered in Wikipedia. I added several links to the Alco HH series article from other related articles.
If you feel that it is wrong to have a subtitle on technology in the 600 section (when other models do not have equal detail on technology), then it is better to move "Diesel-electric power transmission" into its own section. I considered this, but it would break the current structure of the article.
On a general point, I think this article, (like many other railways articles) may be turning into a vanity article with too much detail on individual locomotives. Nothing bad with that, but if it prevents bringing up really relevant information, then it is a bad thing. Petri Krohn 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
(Moving discussion to Talk:ALCO HH series Petri Krohn 08:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC) )


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

Nazi POV?! I beg your pardon? It's nice Irpen made you join the revert war, perhaps I'll be able to make you join the talk page as well, as this is what Irpen and other revert warriors should do as well. //Halibutt 14:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
All right, I will not call you names in exchange. But be sure to read WP:CIVIL the next time you call someone a Nazi. //Halibutt 19:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Marine biology

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

Civil disturbances and military action in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina

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

Why did you remove them in the first place? -- Petri Krohn 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
It's listed in the edit summary — WP:NOT a collection of links; I removed ones that didn't fit WP:EL. Now, your turn. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


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

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

Bypassing redirects

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

In this case, no harm done :-) -- Petri Krohn 12:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Consensus? Where? It was my understanding that redirects are to be avoided when linking to a page. Powers 23:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
(Moved discussion to Talk:Water planet -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC))

Huh, are you a troll?

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

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

Comment on AFD

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

Heraldry Portal?

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

Death of Hiltler

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

Please annote pertinent'S' with reasons and reasoning

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

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

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

You might

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

Ingrian map

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

Collegiate church in Tum


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


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


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

Merge of Great Northern War and Great Northern War and Norway

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

Intrigued that you elected to revert without either looking at the discussion page or pausing to discuss there.
Cheers - Williamborg 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Landlocked Russia

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

Operation barbarossa

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

My edit summary could have been improved. The grammar *was* really bad and that's what most of the changes were. Somem of it was obvious poor translation or non-native english. However, I also removed some nonsense and speculation. Check the diffs if you are concerned. regards, DMorpheus 17:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sigismund III Vasa

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

re Virtuoso Universal Server

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

Your article, SS Rajputana, was selected for DYK!

Updated DYK query On July 13, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article SS Rajputana, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 01:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-German deletionist"

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

Terrorist disambig

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

Gustaf Nordenskiöld the villian?

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

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

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

Vanity Link

Why did I remove it? Please see this page: for why. The author of the site being linked to is the person who is adding these external links. Furthermore, they are using sockpuppets to create an illusion of popularity about these links and are being very aggressive on talk pages. Gsd2000 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Simca articles

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

Talk:Boston Tea Party

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

Gothic Survival

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

List of HSC ferry routes

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

History of CIA-sponsored regime change

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

World War II

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

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

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

Grand Portage

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

Siege of Port Arthur

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


Updated DYK query On 12 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
Updated DYK query On 14 September, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Weston Patton, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Talk:Jacob De la Gardie

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

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

Harassment warning

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

Checking the time stamps in your contributions list, I understand that you probably didn't see my warning before reverting me on Uppland's page, so I'm not going to block you for it. Don't edit his page again, and don't behave in this inconsiderate way towards any other users either. Seriously, what exactly is it you hope you achieve by annoying a fellow editor who has acted appropriately and responded courteously to you throughout? Bishonen | talk 03:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC).

Psl Väinämöinen

It is quite a difference between battleships and coastal defence ships, and I know that the finns did not call her a Taistelulaiva (Battle ship), but Panssarilaiva (Armoured ship). Per definition, she is classed as a costal defence are the Swedish, Norwegian and German counterparts. —MoRsΞ 13:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Coastal defence ship is a highly POV British classification. Will it be OK with you if the text reads "Armoured ship". -- Petri Krohn 13:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is ok with me. —MoRsΞ 13:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Georgia-Russia spying dispute

Why did you create the redirect "Russian military headquarters in Tbilisi"? I do not see the connection between that phrase and the page it redirects to. I have reverted your edit to Georgia-Russia spying dispute. DRK 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I created the redirect Russian military headquarters in Tbilisi two days before the article on the Georgia-Russia spying dispute was even created. I am hoping that someone would expand it into an article (or redirect it to Russian military forces in the Caucasus), and explain what these troops are doing there. The link now redirects to Transcaucasian Front, the section on Russian Transcaucasus Group of Forces covers the post-soviet forces. -- Petri Krohn 03:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"Russia" disambiguation

Hi. I've reverted some of your additions of other uses templates to articles with "Russia" in the name. Disambiguation is only necessary where the name of the article may actually represent something else. But, for example, the exact name "White Russia" doesn't refer to any of the other things listed at Russia (disambiguation). Alternate names probably belong in the introductory paragraph, while see also links belong at the end (if they are not linked in the article).

Sorry if I sound pedantic, but I think disambiguation links should be minimized because they detract from the impact of the start of an article. They are a necessary evil, to be used only in the case where true confusion is likely. Michael Z. 2006-10-06 04:10 Z

Russia/Russian Federation

AWB fixes Why don't you want me to fix this with AWB? Are you planning on splitting Russia into two articles? How? Why? I don't see anything on Talk:Russia about it... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Because Russian Federation should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. I have not done this today, because it might be event better to move Russia to Russian Federation. See my comments on Portal:Russia/New article announcements.
2. In article Leonid Reiman you not only changed the link, but also edited the visable text to Russia. See also Russia (disambiguation). -- Petri Krohn 18:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that there are several hundred articles with redirects in them. If you don't put actual content into Russian Federation, it's pointless to stop fixing the redirects. There is no way that Russia is going to be moved to Russian Federation, as that contradicts the naming conventions and would be a huge hassle for people behind the scenes.
  2. That was the point. The President of Russia is the same thing as the President of the Russian Federation. There is no reason to have either the text or the link say "the Russian Federatoin" in place of "Russia," anymore than we should change every instance of "San Marino" to "Most Serene Republic of San Marino." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
AWB fixes again It's clear from your discussion and naming conventions that Russia is not going to be moved to Russian Federation, so I'm avoiding several hundred redirects. It is not without any reason; it is to make Wikipedia more user-friendly. "Clean up" and the rest of the edit summary is automatically-generated text from WP:AWB. I have no idea what this means: "It seems to me that it is hardly anything more than misguided ethnic POV pushing." -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
(I see that Koavf has already responded here, so I'm copying my comment over): Petri -- Koavf's changes appear to be correct. He is changing Russian Federation -- which is simply a redirect -- to Russia. This has nothing to do with POV; it's a simple clerical change. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 17:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Possibilities You tagged Russian Federation. You'll never get the page moved, and almost certainly won't get it split, but go for it if you want. Please don't revert back to redirects, though, as that is not helpful for the end user. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Other Russias I understand that "Russia" can refer to things other than the current state of the Russian Federation, which is why I would never change the former to the latter. "Russian Federation" is always inclusive of "Russia," though, and changing the names in this way is always accurate, if sometimes less precise. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Justin -- Petri (and now others) have advised you that this is a complicated area which needs further discussion. How about if we take this off your AWB list until the complexities are resolved? -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Russia and ethnicity "Russia" is used as the short-form name of the state the Russian Federation, which is why all pages relating to the R.F. are at "X of Russia" (e.g. President of Russia.) Vladimir Putin is the president of Russians, Ukrainians, Turkmen, Tatars, Mongolians, etc., he is not the president of an ethnic group. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please don't call Russia "nonsense". This is not acceptable. Such edits will be reverted on sight. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you find it neccessary to promote this POV on so many articles, I have to warn you that your assumption about "Russia referring to a single ethnicity and language" does not hold water. If it is not properly sourced, it will be qualified as original research. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A good point! Russia and Russians can be both a single ethnicity and language and multi-ethnic country/nation/entity. One more point to disambiguate. -- Petri Krohn 13:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On October 18, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cooperative Village, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


You have absolutely no right to request a photo be deleted for having attribution as a condition, please show me ONE precedent where this has ever happened before making such demands. It is perfectly acceptable to allow free use of your copyright photo on this site while asking to be attributed. There is a specific tag for that if you care to click on the photo and see. --RaffiKojian 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I see what happened... no worries! --RaffiKojian 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Runic Calendar

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that I'm temporarily deleting some text you added to Runic calendar because I couldn't quite understand your meaning. Since there was no reference given, I thought I'd ask you if you might be able to clarify. It sounds very interesting! Do you have a source you could direct me to? Maybe there should be an article about the Aun cycle?

Even though the synodic month has about 29 days, according to the calendar, the full moon would ever only fall on 19 of them. The situation changed after the Aun cycle of about 300 years, when the calendar had to be adjusted by one day.

Bencoland 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Taylor series

I did a partial revert of your changes to the Taylor series article. Your changes introduced some mistakes. A Taylor series is not a sum of derivatives, it is a sum of terms with each term being a derivative times a power over a factorial. Also, not all trignometric functions are globally analytic, like the tangent function. Also, you introduced a subtle mistake by implying that partial sums are always a good approximation to an infinitely differentiable function. That is true only for analytic functions, and only then just in a range. You can reply here if you have any comments. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your change to analytic function too. An analytic function equals its Taylor series only in a neighbourhood, not everywhere. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I replied at Talk:Taylor series too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Isola Bella

Hi Petri. Two of your pictures (Image:Select Sketches - Menai Bridge 1.jpg and Image:Select Sketches - Menai Bridge 2.jpg) have links on their description pages to Isola Bella. I have just turned Isola Bella into a disambiguation page between Isola Bella (Lago Maggiore) and Isola Bella (Sicily). Your link was previously pointing at the Sicilian island; however I have not updated it, since I was not sure which of the two islands was really intended. (The one on Lago Maggiore is the better known.) Best wishes, —Ian Spackman 12:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Petri, there has already been plenty of discussion. Everyone except you agrees that the article about the modern state should be at Saxony, as it was before you moved it. Your original move was done without consultation and without consensus. That's fine per WP:BOLD so long as no one objects, but now that people have objected, you should accept that the consensus is against you. If you want to move the page back to Free State of Saxony, please use the process at WP:RM. —Angr 16:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you are choosing to ignore consensus on this issue, I have no choice but to protect both pages against moves. If you want to change the name of the pages, please use WP:RM, as your original move has proved not to be uncontroversial. —Angr 16:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

More possible Finnish POV-pushing

Hi Petri and thanks for your continuous efforts to keeping the article Treaty of Fredrikshamn in order. I'd like to ask your opinion about this edit. Is it unsupported Finnish nationalism POV or is it OK?

This is not said because I am particularly against Finland, Finnish people or anything else Finnish. I just want articles to be up to standard and not full of unsupported POV.

Thanks for any response, Fred-Chess 19:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Rendering of character with ümlaut

(Moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive)

Something has happened to the way pages with characters with umlauts are rendered. The Scandinavian characters Å, Ä, and Ö are included in the ISO/IEC 8859-1 or Latin-1 characted set, and should be represented as normal 8 bit characters. The characters are now replaced by unicode values. An example is Väinämöinen_(ship)#V.C3.A4in.C3.A4m.C3.B6inen.27s_operational_history. Note the difference in the ways the name of the ship Väinämöinen is presented. It seems to me that this is a result of a change in the software sometime this or last week.

The change has negative effects:

  1. Links to anchors get a weird form.
  2. On IE the characters are rendered in a different font, making them look like bold in subtitles. (Note the ü in the subtitle above; it is not bold though it may look like it.)

When the text is edited, the characters still look normal: åäö... -- Petri Krohn 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has been UTF-8 based with links using UTF-8 values for some time so that shouldn't be related to any recent changes. Looking at the source of that page i can't find anything unusual about the characters in that subtitle nor do they render oddly in IE for me. Plugwash 08:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Links to anchors that you manually add can be typed normally. For instance, #Rendering of character with ümlaut works: it's autoconverted to point to "#Rendering_of_character_with_.C3.BCmlaut". It's illegal to put anything other than a subset of ASCII into anchor names at present, and we can't even use normal percent encoding, so we made up something using periods. Wikimedia sites haven't used any encoding other than UTF-8 in text for at least a year now, I believe. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The subtitle text appears four times in the HTML source text
  • Twice in the <a ... > anchor
  1. name=".C3.BCmlaut"
  2. id=".C3.BCmlaut"
  • Twice in the <h2> header
  1. <span class="mw-headline">ümlaut</span>
  2. title="Edit section: ümlaut"
There is no reason why the <h2> header text should be anything but 8-bit ISO/IEC 8859-1. Using UTF-8 is of course a good reason :-)
Anyway, something has changed since yesterday, the Ü in the subtitle no longer looks bold. Today, the source for the ü is ü". I am not quite sure what it was yesterday, as I may have just looked at the 2 first ones, and missed the <h2> text.
The issue may have something to do with the rendering of ;Uuml and ;Auml on some browsers. On IE they sometimes use a different font from Ü and Ä, making their appearence bold. It may of course also be a temporary problem in my browser. -- Petri Krohn 06:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. "ümlaut" is naturally what you see when viewing the HTML source text in a 8-bit text editor. I guess it would look like ü on an UTF-8 text editor. -- Petri Krohn 07:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Something has changed once again, I see bold today. --Petri Krohn 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Siberian" Wikipedia

Hello! Recently, you cast a vote against closure of the "Siberian" Wikipedia, presumably basing it on the supposed existence of the "Siberian language" with millions of speakers. Perhaps the issue was misunderstood. There is no Siberian language or Siberian nation, apart from the native Turkic and other peoples who lived there long before Russian colonists arrived in the 16th century. The matter in question is an artificial "language" created based on several archaic Russian dialects in 2005 by a Mr. Zolotarev and a few of his friends, inclusion of which fairly blatantly violates the No Original Research policy of Wikipedia. Siberian Slavs speak Russian and list themselves on censuses as Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusans - this you can verify for yourself. I invite you to return to participate in the discussion and reconsider your vote, and appreciate constructive debate on the topic. Cossack 00:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have voted on the issue (against closure). -- Petri Krohn 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Petri, thanks for fixing this. Best regards ×Meegs 12:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Taylor and Francis

"Plural or Singular"

  • I notice that the T&F Group is.
  • However, T&F publish.
  • Is there a mistake--or do I not know British grammar?
Yours, etc.,

Fair use, replaceability and the Commons

The issues you're talking about relate to the fact that the images on the Commons must be usable in the Wikipedias for all languages, regardless of licensing. Since (my understanding) copyright law on most of the Continent does not allow fair-use exceptions for images of three-dimensional creative works like architecture and fashion, even if you have taken it yourself, you see a lot less of that on the European-language Wikis than you do here.

For example, we're allowed to use book covers. They're not. I have an account on the French Wikipedia, and I did some work on Le diable s'habille en Prada, the French version of The Devil Wears Prada, which I had started here.

I had a picture of the French cover, which I thought was very nice. But before I put it up, I had noticed the absence of other covers in articles on popular books, so I asked an editor there who was thoughtfully cleaning up my French. He said, yes, we're not allowed to do it under European law. And indeed, the French Wikipedia's fair use page does say, indeed, that the Berne Convention is more restrictive: "Le Fair Use de la Convention de Berne est MOINS étendu que le Fair Use du droit américain!"

So that may be why they got deleted from the Commons. But the replaceability guidelines I'm working on are strictly for the English Wikipedia. Daniel Case 05:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying, that even though these images were not allowed on Commons, they would be accepted as GFDL on the English Wikipedia? Is this because there is genuinely a difference on derivative work on Commons and En? Or is this because there is less copyright paranoia on En?
Anyway, this still leaves us material that cannot be free content, even on the English Wikipedia, and therefore should fall under non-replaceability. --Petri Krohn 05:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The Commons page on derivative works seems to be pertinent reading here. The idea is that the Commons will have no images which will conceivably carry a third-party copyright.
As far as photographs of statues and sculptures goes, they are derivative works even on the English wikipedia. Fortunately we have a fair use tag especially for photos that are just the artwork and used to illustrate articles about said artwork (see one on my watchlist, The Sphere, which used to have a photo I had taken of the sculpture as it currently is until it got deleted in a previous copyright witch hunt). It cannot, I was told, be GFDLed. Daniel Case 05:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


Moi! I've been adding some contributions on Finnish architects/architecture. I'd like to add a couple of pictures - ones I've taken, but would like to "give away" to Wikipedia, so to say. But I can't manage to upload them. This may be an outrageous request, but seeing as you do upload pictures, could I send them to you (in JPG format) to upload? Feel free to say "Sorry No!" --TTKK 11:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Petri for the advice to persist! And thanks Ghirlandajo for your very kind offer. I finally managed to work out where I was going wrong; and have now uploaded my first few pictures; I will soon start adding pictures to the articles I've written on various Finnish architects. --TTKK 14:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Prince John Obolensky

Could you check whether the guy is notable? I presume his Russian name is Ivan Obolensky. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. He is Ivan Mihailovich Obolenski, Governor-General of Finland. (Article was missing.) -- Petri Krohn 16:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Glider manufacturers

Thanks for adding HUT. Is this the same as Eiri-Avion O/Y which is already listed, albeit without an article. The HUT aricle contains no reference to glider manufactue incidentally. JMcC 00:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

HUT is Helsinki University of Technology, an University, Eiri-Avion O/Y is an Osakeyhtiö (Oy) a Limited liability company. See also PIK for Polyteknikkojen Ilmailukerho. -- Petri Krohn 00:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I created an article for Polyteknikkojen Ilmailukerho and linked it to HUT. It needs expanding but its a start. JMcC 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

I District, Turku
V District, Turku
II District, Turku
Ray Eames
Cranbrook Educational Community
IV District, Turku
Treaty of Tartu
Ottoman (furniture)
Eric Trolle
Cranbrook Academy of Art
Erkki Tuomioja
IX District, Turku
Paavo Talvela
Aleksi Randell
Edwin Linkomies
Wireless network
Total Identity
Pacific Proving Grounds
Strata title
List of major freeway systems
Add Sources
MSDN Academic Alliance
First language
Jöns Budde
Subscriber Identity Module
Wilhelm Bleek
Nikolai Bukharin

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko

Okay, I saw you edited the article and added back the United Nuclear info. To me personally, it looks like we're "advertising" for the company. Is there a source that we can find that actually discusses the possible ways he was actually poisoned? My only concern is about the link, not the actual words. Nishkid64 00:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Judging from G-hits and the relevance of G-hits to the subject, I failed to find anything that truly asserts the notability of Nikolay Kovalev. Also, the article on Boris Berezovsky makes no mention of the Liberal Russia party. However, it may be notable, but I'm not entirely sure. Also, the party has been in existence for a mere 4 years, and I don't know if it has enough notability in Russia yet. Anyway, see [3]. Nishkid64 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
He is the former head of FSB: Nikolay Kovalev, a 47-year-old colonel general, has become the seventh director of the FSB since 1991. [4]

World War II

Im agreeing many of those edits arent good. Theres some truth in the Poland Germany border though so I might bring back my version of that.Opiner 09:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference on Alexander Litvinenko

I was looking over the article, and I wanted to check over the reference that says Litvinenko made allegations saying Putin was a pedophile. Apparently, it was a broken link so we were using a cache to obtain the link. "In July 2006, an article written by Litvinenko alleged that Putin was a pedophile.[21] He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo." I wanted to verify the comparison to Chikatilo, and so I clicked the link. Apparently, it's not working for me, so I wanted to see if it's working for you, and also if you know of a different source for this link. I remember somewhere that you mentioned you found a link on the pedophilia claims. Anyway, thanks. Nishkid64 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I found the link, but I can only access it from Google. When I use that big URL, it doesn't open the page. Also, I couldn't find any allegations Litvinenko made referencing Putin to Chikatilo. I did this search and I did find some pages, but none of them related Litvinenko to Chikatilo and Putin. I'm removing the Chikatilo comments. Nishkid64 18:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was the following Russian source that related Putin to Chikatilo. Sorry for bothering you! Nishkid64 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:de:Nukleare Sicherheit

What ever happened to the article on nuclear safety on the german Wikipedia? (de:Nukleare Sicherheit) I have now redirected it to de:Sicherheitskultur. -- Petri Krohn 07:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

It was noticed that it was important, however somebody listed it for deletion in the early stage of the translation, i made some effort to keep the article, still, The article is deleted. reg. Mion 22:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Did I jump the gun?

If he is purposely throwing the POV of the article to change it to his own personal opinion, then he can be blocked. He did delete other people's contributions, as well. I don't think "Reports in the Times, otherwise replete with errors for instance that Litvinenko in charge of anti-terrorist activities, note that while Polonium is subject to strict controls, in theory at least, it could have been purchased commercially in France, Russia or the US." can really be sourced. The user was just trying to avert any suspicions of Russian government involvement (In particular, he kept pointing out Litvinenko's connection to Berezovsky). Also, Petri, I know that you have been edit warring with for the past few days. According to your conception of blocking policy, I can technically block you (you did past 3RR most likely, and so did Nishkid64 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The first part replete with errors is unencyclopedic. There is however nothing technically wrong with the rest. ...purchased commercially in France, Russia or the US can certainly be sourced, if it is not included in the Times article.¨This is certainly not vandalism.
As to the reverts. Total number of reverts is over 3v but they have alternatively been for adding, deleting or changing content. -- Petri Krohn 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I guess that wasn't too bad. I don't know, but I just interpreted his edits as bad faith. I mean, it's not like he had 1 or 2 edits. He had almost 10 or so, and he spent hours picking away at the article and adding all of his allegations (wherever he got them). Also, besides the default {{vandalblock}} template, I did not say he was vandalizing the page. Nishkid64 22:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Bay of Viipuri

I created the page about the Battle of the Bay of Viipuri. I considered both alternatives for the name. I investigated, checked Google and compared notes and similar cases. I probably should have started with "the", to begin with. That represents the more proper English language. What do you base your view on ? I was only changing my own text, In case that was you concern. After some time I may go ahead and revert.

Use of talk pages

Petri - I thought we might have a conversation outside of the two talk pages at issue: Talk:Iraq Study Group Report and Talk:Iraq Study Group. In particular, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines states:

  • The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.
  • Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal
  • Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues.

I have reduced your posting at Talk:Iraq Study Group Report to what complies (marginally, in my opinion, but not worth arguing further over) with the above guidelines. I don't want to censor you, but introducing completely bogus (humorous) "secret" information as a way of getting the attention of other editors does not set a good precedent; I think the creativity of editors should be focused on articles and not on trying to getting chuckles - or just attention.

I'm also deleting - again - the posting at Talk:Iraq Study Group, since the two articles are clearly linked, and someone interested in the subject is going to look at the talk pages of both. John Broughton | Talk 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Report link

The US Institute of Peace says: "If you'd like to link to the Iraq Study Group report from your Web site, please use the following link:". They said please. -- Kendrick7talk 08:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Americans are polite; they always say "please". --Petri Krohn 08:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ball grid array

Hi Petri! You have recently edited the Ball grid array article and linked grid pattern. I hope you don't mind me unlinking it again, as grid pattern talks about cities and streets, nothing to do with BGA. --Romanski 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping we would have an article "grid pattern", with links to Centered square number. Maybe there is an article somewhere, and it should redirect to it. --Petri Krohn 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Michael Mehta books

Don't get me wrong - that text belongs somewhere else, and we will have to move it. I just couldn't think of where off the top of my head, and didn't want to make a snap decision. Simesa 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

Mesa-Verde---Cliff-Palace-in 1891 - edit1.jpg
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Mesa-Verde---Cliff-Palace-in 1891 - edit1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Raven4x4x 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Petri,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Mesa-Verde---Cliff-Palace-in 1891 - edit1.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 2, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-02. howcheng {chat} 07:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

finery forge

WE seem to be engaging in competitive editing over the words 'ironmaking' and 'steelmaking'. There is a significant differnece between bar iron (wrought iron) and steel. Steel can be made in a German Forge, if the process was stopped at the right stage, but it was never made in a Walloon Forge in England. Accordingly, statement should be that the finery forge is an obsolete way of making iron. If you disagree, please explain why on the discussion page of the article (where I am copying this). Peterkingiron 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Tourist information on Loho.

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. The version you restoreed was full of such useless information, not suitable for an encyclopaedia, and contained spamlinks to realtors trying to sell real estate in the area. I have removed all the tourist guide information, again. Do not restore it, please. Proto:: 00:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User Judae1

I noticed you've been following me around a bit. Thank you for taking an interest, and I appreciate some of your edits.

Just wanted to introduce myself. Be well. Juda Juda S. Engelmayer 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward Lucas

Petri, please see my comments on Talk:Edward Lucas (journalist). Why are you so interested in singling out these particular articles? It's clear from your earlier edits that you have some sort of issue with what Lucas has written. This does not make these particular articles notable. I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, in particular the section on biased or malicious content. -- ChrisO 00:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue with Lucas, other than that he reverted my edits on the acticle Edward Lucas (journalist). I do not think subjects of articles should edit their articles, even if they view something in the article as negative. What they should do is post their objections on talk pages. Deleting material from the article is in my opinion an indication of bad faith not done with the interests of Wikipedia in mind.
I do not think the two The Economist articles I refered to are in any way "malicious content". Writing articles, even criticizing wikipedia, is in no way "negative"; in fact this is what journalists do. I also agree with his criticism.
The two articles are what I believe are the most notable parts of his journalistic career. The ICDISS article was mentioned in Wikipedia. The Estonia article was the focus of international attention. I do not know if he has written anything else notable. I do know that no other Wikipedia editor has seen it important enough to include in the article. Also, if I went looking through his journalistic history, just to defend my edits, would seem like stalking. Besides, I do not know if he is notable enough to warrant my time. (His family tree looks interesting though.)
The fact that you joined him in opposing me made me a bit suspicious. In addition to your user name, similar to Cristina Odone, you seem to live in or near London and share the interest in religion and Eastern Europe. -- Petri Krohn 01:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I think we're getting closer to the issue now. It's your personal contention that the two articles are "the most notable parts of his journalistic career". I'm afraid that counts as original research. Do you have any independent sources to support your claim? If you don't, then it can't be included in the article - original research is specifically disallowed (see Wikipedia:No original research). -- ChrisO 09:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
John Peet article - dear Petri Krohn, thanks. If you think that John Peet article should not be deleted, then let it stay - I would have no objection to that. I have no idea who John Peet is - but I thought that an article that describes an obscure personality in terms like "talented" and "creative" is hardly worth an encyclopedic entry. In fact if a traditional encyclopedia was filled with entries like that it would be deemed utterly worthless. I am sure there are journalists who may deserve an entry because their work is so known - or notorious. There are even Economist personages, like Edward Lucas, the notorious Russophobe (here the factor of notability or rather notoriety, is obvious: no one would ask for the entry's deletion Roobit

Oscar Frithiof Nordquist

My pleasure. As for who the actual Nordquist is, your guess is probably better than mine (I just researched a bit on the internet and came up with it). The same authority is associated with the Ladoga Seal, and it makes sense since Ladoga was still partly within the borders of Finland at the time. You're in Helsinki? I spent a great deal of time over there during my college years and miss my regular visits. TheQuandry 06:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)