User talk:Petri Krohn/Archive 2008

Krajina Towns Again

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

Kola Inlet redirect

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

picture: Bona_Sforza_young.jpg

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

Advice to visitors

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

GNW

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

Welcome back...

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

Battle of Grengam

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

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

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

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

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

I. M. Pei

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

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

Protector of the Holy Sepulchre

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

Grengam and Poltava

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

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

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

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

Edward Harper

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

Your edits

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

Hate speech

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

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

Link to blog

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

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

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

Confusing "theory" with "conjecture"

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