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

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

-- Petri Krohn (talk)

Archives

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

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.

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

• Anal language [1]

  Not to be confused with Anus language

• Anus language [2]

  Not to be confused with Anal language

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NPA - 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Estonian Mark 1919.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Got your email.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Hi Petri,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Checking edits by linking to toolserver.

Confirmed by Singapore

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

• 66.199.232.128/27
• 66.199.245.0/25
• 72.20.28.0/28
• 72.20.28.112/28
• 81.94.201.80/28
• 85.17.231.112/29
• 94.46.3.192/27
• 95.143.195.0/25
• 96.45.189.192/26
• 109.200.6.0/25
• 174.137.52.192/26
• 216.169.108.192/27
• 216.169.110.192/27

New ranges

These were found by user zzuuzz using independent technical analyzis.

• 72.9.104.8/29
• 74.115.210.192/27
• 74.115.214.128/27
• 83.133.122.112/29
• 83.133.123.118/32
• 83.133.124.98/31
• 174.36.29.64/27

Others

Confirmed by Singapore, but not listed above

• 85.17.188.0/24
• 188.72.225.0/24
• 188.72.227.0/24
• 188.72.233.0/24

Others, unconfirmed by Singapore

• 94.46.8.0/24
• 96.18.82.0/24
• 96.244.233.0/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question

How do you know you have made it on Wikipedia?

Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts based on this reference – for future reference.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

merge with estates of the realm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is highly concerning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Petri. Please see Tammsalu's new suggestion at WP:AE#Russavia (dated 09:04 on 19 August). You are invited to expand your own comment in the AE, to propose what (if any) category should be put on the Karen Drambjan article regarding left-wing politics. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Should it be removed from the 6 other articles its in? Dougweller (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You must mean Talk:Venus of Hohle Fels#Significance. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article International Foundation for Civil Liberties has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The only sources for this "foundation" are self published or those with a connection to the foundation and its people. I.e. a book by Alex Goldfarb can't be used to give notability to a foundation headed by Alex Goldfarb. Additionally, it is unlikely to grow past anything of stub size even if there were RS for it.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 22:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent comment on "Greek Genocide" talk page and wanted share your concerns. Such pages is usually do not contain historical accounts with analysis from histories with expertise on the field. As there are naturally more Armenian, Greek or anti-Turkish editors than Turkish or pro-Turkish editors these articles become propaganda page for them. Sometimes people even go as far as twisting resources' content to use them as a reference source. Even the simplest edit that might undermine what they're trying to say is immediately shut down. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Petri Krohn! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pakistani textbooks. Since you had some involvement with the Pakistani textbooks redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). --lTopGunl (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy experimental nuclear submarines, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In Method acting, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Group Theatre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hearst walker0021.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you edited the sources to the sentence about Estonian POWs, so you might like to comment in a new talk page section I have created see Talk:Prague Offensive#Estonian POWs -- PBS (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Finlayson & Co - Plevna 1877.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revisit Talk:Lake Peipus#Name_again Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe your reverting of my changes on the Council for Foreign Relation page is unwarranted. Per the single purpose account claim; I am interested in striking conspiracy theory rhetoric from pages, but I also make many constructive edits. I almost single-handedly rebuilt the David Rockefeller page, rewriting, sourcing new material, etc. I am not a sock puppet and am in no way affiliated with anyone with an interest in the pages I edit. I don't want to start an edit war, but your revert does not seem within the spirit of the WP: SPA. Please reconsider. Sailingfanblues (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0743265947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.147.235.216 (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here is the book reference:

• Michael I Karpin (2006). The bomb in the basement : how Israel went nuclear and what that means for the world. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0743265947.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoy peanuts. Such a scrumptious sort of seed. I especially love their luscious legume-y flavour, which I find to be best brought out with a bit of honey and roasting. What is your preferred preparation of peanut? Salted? Or perhaps boiled? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Petri Krohn. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri, do you think it would be possible upload the image of Bäckman and Assad shaking hands into commons, (see this), I think historic images such as this should be preserved for all eternity. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk:Armed_Forces_of_the_Libyan_Arab_Jamahiriya#Requested_move_2. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kalervo Kurkiala (AfD discussion)

It seems fairly obvious that you are one of the right people to ask to come and discuss the biographical sources here. Uncle G (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's just say my Finnish is no worse than my German or Swedish. I hope there are no huge errors.  :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Rawley Mine Commissary $1.00 Token.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merkava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Akhbar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article R5 Productions has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company. Only in-depth coverage appears to be a blog.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not my stuff, {{Proposed deletion endorsed}}. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katherine Ann Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently made a major overhaul of the Operation Changing Direction 11 article that is not completed as yet. I have also made a suggestion to delete this article for being redundant. I thought you might be interested.

Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nexus (magazine) has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an FYI, In Talk:Camera lens there is a proposal by User:Velella (seconded by me) to move this section to Photographic lens design. That is probably enough for a consensus move to that artcle (lack of a response is a response). No comment right now on your BOLD although I did restore a lost tag. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that possibility. Yes, there is common material. If one wanted the merge the the two, one would have to rewrite it from scratch – losing the historical point-of-view of what you called an "essay". On the other hand, there is a clear need for a historical review, so there is really no need to do anything to the existing "history" text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your correction of my change (500 megatons TNT to 500 kilotons TNT) was entirely correct. Embarrassingly, in my haste it had slipped my mind that the SI unit for energy, the Joule is kg m² s^-2 not g m² s^-2. ie the SI unit of mass is the kilogramme not the gramme. Thus my calculation of impact energy = kinetic energy = ½ mass x (velocity) ² was out by three orders of magnitude! Dr David Siegwart (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Russian meteor event.
Message added 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

See the section: Lead: Meteor, asteroid vs. meteoroid. Cheers. — N2e (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have participated in a prior informal discussion on changing the title of 2013 Russian meteor event.

This discussion has been closed in favor of a formal Requested Move.

You are invited to comment on the formal discussion here.

Thank you. μηδείς (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I removed your WP:PROD tag on Madcow Productions because no reason was given for deletion, and I am wary of deleting things without a reason.

Uberaccount (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I removed another PROD template from Madcow Productions beacuse, under WP:PROD#Nominating, you shouldn't PROD something that has already had an attempted PROD. I don't object to you starting an AfD about it.

Uberaccount (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have commented here first. I did not understand it was your intention to challenge the {{Prod}}, but simply to dismiss it on technical grounds. In fact, I understood you to be an administrator taking an interest in prods, which I now see you are not. Evidently it was your intent the challenge the prod. You could have said it more clearly. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madcow Productions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ubuntu (operating system), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Is that an automated message or did you really write that? :-)

Re: GNU Hurd? GNU Userland? "GNU Operating System" is ambiguous. – GNU is not ambiguous. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You created redirect from upstream program to the room 641A:

(cur | prev) 17:30, 9 June 2013‎ Petri Krohn (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Room 641A) (thank)

Why you did this? Are you sure that 641a was part of upstream; or is there any more detailed description of the upstream (I mean both information from wikipedia and information from the internet). — Preceding unsigned comment added by a5b (talk • contribs)

I do not think there is anything else on Wikipedia about the "Upstream program", or at least there was not at the time when I made the redirect. The general article could be called NSA fiberoptic tapping or something. Feel free to start the article. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In August 2011, you placed a restriction on this page. You referred to the talk page for the discussion. However, there is now no discussion on this Gustav Otto Douglas. Has the dispute been resolved. Either way, action needs to be taken to improve the article and remove the notice Shipsview (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? Did you even read the article? I see from your edit history that you have a particular interest in the Scottish Douglas family. Are you on some kind of vendetta against this family with an intent to smear the family name? I guess not :-)

I do not see any change in the article in the last two years. The article reads like a character assassination, it makes vile accusations against the subject – without any sourcing whatsoever. Even though it is not covered by WP:BLP, such accusations have to be supported by reliable sources.

Most importantly however, the article now serves as a WP:COATRACK for claims of genocide. Such claims – without proper attribution – constitute hate speech.

If your intent is to improve the article, you should start by looking for source. The Russian version provides two on-line sources, one of then in Swedish. You should be able to access both of them through Google Translate or Google Chrome. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not responding sooner. I had not encountered a WP:COATRACK before - good description! Of course I had read the article! That is why I confirmed the need for someone to do a rewrite. not sure it can be me just now. Shipsview (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Climate change skepticism (denialism). Since you had some involvement with the Climate change skepticism (denialism) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Gaba ^(talk) 16:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Military governor. Since you had some involvement with the Military governor redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Not to say I trust your position sufficiently, but I know you since 2006 as a courageous, independent editor who don’t hesitate to stand against a mob. Believe my experience: such persons were sometimes (moderately) common, but now very few of them remained here. Now I ask you for help. You may decline my request, of course, and doing it explicitly you won’t make an offence.

First of all, watch my user_talk for several days, please. In the case I was blocked, you should prepare a case for ArbCom against two en.wiki sysops (you can browse my contribs to identify which namely), who committed anti-consensual manipulations and gross content disruption. Possibly, together with other reasonable editors. Of course, if I will be blocked by somebody third (that is probable due to overly gregarious character of Wikipedians), you should include him/her too.

Regards, Incnis Mrsi (talk) 06:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will go with Yulia here. No reason to waste time arguing on Wikipedia. Just nuke them damn 8 million Ruskies. If they make any more trouble, nuke Moscow too! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genocide claims, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. I have reverted your edit since it is sourced only to a Youtube-video, which isn't a reliable source here on the English language Wikipedia. For many reasons, ranging from not knowing for sure who owns, mans and operates the vehicles to not knowing for sure where a video has been shot. So don't add it again unless you find a proper reliable source for it. Thomas.W ^talk 14:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect South-East Ukraine. Since you had some involvement with the South-East Ukraine redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 07:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magda Gabor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nazi occupation of Hungary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Luonnonmaan telakka. Since you had some involvement with the Luonnonmaan telakka redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Luonnonmaan Telakka. Since you had some involvement with the Luonnonmaan Telakka redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Turku Repair Yard. Since you had some involvement with the Turku Repair Yard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wärtsila Turku Shipyard. Since you had some involvement with the Wärtsila Turku Shipyard redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Gwafton (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect False equivalency movement. Since you had some involvement with the False equivalency movement redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyvää uutta vuotta!

Kaihsu (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain this revert? Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fortum Shipping Company. Since you had some involvement with the Fortum Shipping Company redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Finnish Air Force - Fokker F27.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The file was uploaded in June 2007, over 8 years ago! There is an alternative from November 2011, File:Finnish Air Force F-27-400M.jpg. I will change the photo in the article Finnish Intelligence Research Establishment. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! Thank you. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect St. Hans. Since you had some involvement with the St. Hans redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SSTflyer 10:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Putin 2.0. Since you had some involvement with the Putin 2.0 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. BDD (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ytimg.com. Since you had some involvement with the Ytimg.com redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't interject your own personal opinion only backed up to primary sources, especially a user-generated-source that fails WP:Identifying reliable sources, as you did at article Pizzagate (conspiracy theory) with this edit adding a link to "Urban Dictionary" as a purported source.

This is incredibly inappropriate and a violation of site policy on a page regarding WP:BLPs.

Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 21:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Imperial Theatres should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperial Theatres .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

 Diako ^{«  Talk »} 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you previously participated in RM discussions on the page, I'm letting you know about this one. The discussion can be found here:

• Talk:Holocaust_trials_in_Soviet_Estonia#Requested_move_6_November_2017.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Y U NO. Since you had some involvement with the Y U NO redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — JFG ^talk 13:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pixel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Element (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Libyan Army, Petri Krohn!

Wikipedia editor Hydronium Hydroxide just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Although redirection to the article for the current army of a country is standard, in this case it is likely to avoid issues to leave it as a DAB and fix incoming wls.

To reply, leave a comment on Hydronium Hydroxide's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Eero Saarinen - IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2010 North Korean nuclear test. Since you had some involvement with the 2010 North Korean nuclear test redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Previously has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Petya (malware), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikopol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Dan Koehl. Petri Krohn, thanks for creating Tampere University!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please submit vald sources verifying the conent of the article, and categorize.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dan Koehl (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fast ferry. Since you had some involvement with the Fast ferry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Petri Krohn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nokim. Since you had some involvement with the Nokim redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jewish Avengers. Since you had some involvement with the Jewish Avengers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you have inserted at least in two places [34] and [35] that Carl O. Nordling formulated the Knudson hypothesis. However, the paper written by Carl O. Nordling that you cite does not at all relate to the meaning of the Knudson hypothesis. Please join me at the talk page. 130.241.182.39 (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  20:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Eero Saarinen - IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on NoWires Needed requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Shipping company. Since you had some involvement with the Shipping company redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Not a very active user (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Renata (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above article remains citation free despite a request some months ago. The one notable member of the family that an internet search shows up (RAF Pilot, English Rugby Player) is not listed. I am reluctant to nominate it for deletion in part because I know, and am known by a current member of the family who works in a related field to mine. Is there any chance you have access to material or can do something to retrieve it? -----Snowded ^TALK 05:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noble families are by definition "notable". Being referenced in sources is a key aspect of nobility. Princely families are highly notable. Take note that the topic has articles on Wikipedia in five other languages. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt they are notable, but we have an article without a single reference. So if it is on five other articles maybe some references could be moved over? -----Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we do not yet have consensus about whether to delete the article MacBook Air (M1). As a contributor to the MacBook articles, I'd like to invite you to take part in the discussion on the deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacBook Air (M1). Thank you! Andibrema (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect TLC Beatrice. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 22#TLC Beatrice until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect All-union. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 7#All-union until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gaioa (T C L) 14:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kiev compromise and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#Kiev compromise until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect Colonial building and it has been listed for discussion. Anyone, including you, is welcome to participate at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 12 § Colonial building until a consensus is reached. An anonymous username, not my real name 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Suzanne Carlson has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15 § Suzanne Carlson until a consensus is reached. ★Trekker (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

None of these entries are known solely as "Korp!": they are all WP:Partial title matches. This page should be deleted to enable uninhibited Search.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Estate of Swedish Farmers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 24 § Estate of Swedish Farmers until a consensus is reached. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-Soviet alliances has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.  —Michael Z. 15:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Political song has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 17 § Political song until a consensus is reached. — Bilorv (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional rivalries has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Presidential Board has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 14 § Presidential Board until a consensus is reached. Champion (alt) (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]