Hello! Welcome to my talk page, feel free to leave a message for me at the bottom of this page. I'll generally reply on your talk page so you get a new messages notification, however if you would rather I reply here to keep the conversation thread together just say so.

Welcome!

Hello Peter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 22:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to wikipedia, thank you for fixing typos LegCircus 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've fixed my double redirects(?) Thanks! Good job for a newbie! Hope you enjoy your time on wikipedia! vcxlor 13:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Would it be possible to point out how I get it wrong?? vcxlor 14:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which were your redirects, I fixed a load in one go. It might not have been your fault if your re-direct originally went Article A > B , and someone else moved B to C but didn't change A. Or maybe just need to copy and paste the title of the article the re-direct is pointing to so it's spelt exactly the same. Anyway glad to help. --Petros471 15:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!!! You've earned yourself a barnstar!

FireFox 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros471! Thanks for your work on vandalism patrol, you're doing a great job! Please can you remember to sign your subst:test warnings to vandals with 4 tildes (~~~~). That's especially important for test1, as it may be a clueless newbie rather than a true vandal and they may need to contact you for help and advice. Signing your warnings also helps other editors, as we can see immediately when the vandal was last warned and thus warn them again appropriately (a test2 if they've vandalised today; a test1 if it was in the past). Otherwise we have to look in the edit history to see when (and who) - valuable seconds lost on the vandal hunt. It also helps to mention in the edit summary what level of warning you have given for people on RC Patrol.

Thanks for your time. If you as a new user have any questions or need any advice, please drop me a line on my talk page and I'll be happy to help you out! ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh sorry about that, I do realise the importance of signing! I only forget if I'm being busy going onto fight the next vandal ;-) I'll try and remember all the time in future. --Petros471 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected that page temporarily...I'll keep my eye on it. We'll see whether the vandal or us Wikipedians has more patience! --HappyCamper 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm off now anyway. --Petros471 22:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on Quantum mechanics is correct. In the Schrödinger picture, which is implied from the context, the wavefunction changes with time. There is another, more abstract formulation where the wavefunction remains constant and the time evolution is in the operators, called the Heisenberg picture, but this can be reduced to just a mathematical redefinition of the concepts of operator and state and it is thus equivalent to the Schrödinger picture. --DenisDiderot 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking that. I still not really got my head around quantum mechanics... --Petros471 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You find very good introductions to the concepts in The Feynman Lectures on Physics and in Dirac's The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. The best popular science book on Quantum Field Theory is Feynman's QED (book). -- All these are masterpieces. Fee free to ask further questions. --DenisDiderot 23:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We usually only clear out history in the event it contains libel or something else Wikipedia can get sued for. Links to pictures of penises aren't enough, I don't believe. ;-) As a practical matter, it's quite a lot of work to selectively delete things from history. -- SCZenz 23:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your replies... (I'm not sure if this got sent privately properly, sorry)

--Toonstruck 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing the sigs up for me... do edits also show up with the orange notification?

I mistakenly put a vandalism warning in User:HoyHoyHoy's userpage. Right afterwards I realized I had done the wrong thing and changed it, but you had already done it! I'm constantly amazed at the speed at which things happen on Wikipedia. Mangojuice 21:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there I have fixed the others. As you might have guessed I work in the financial sector and we usually never speak of derivatives in singular form, so that's why I changed it, because a singe derivative will always be called by its proper name. But I bend the the rules as I also wanna contribute without making people sad :o) Btw, you changed the credit derivative while I was writing, so when I saved, I got an error and nothing was saved... :o( How can I avoid this in the future? thanks. Meinertsen 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone out there really doesn't like you (24.105.165.19). Fortunately for you he has now been blocked, but I still have the greatest sympathy. My userpage has as of yet not been vandalised, but it probably will be sometime. I hope you are not feeling annoyed/angry/upset (I know I would!). The Neokid Talk 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through your contibutions, and it looks like you deserve this. The Neokid Talk 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You must accept before I can move the nomination to the main nominations page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.

You're not actually too inexperienced. I can't remember where I found it, but some people want more and some people want less. You've got the skills, all you need is the opportunity. That's what I'm giving you. The Neokid Talk 19:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told him: I don't {{block}} people unless they've already been blocked by an administrator as User:Stiff little willy was. 68.39.174.238 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for understanding - it's something he and I do, which doesn't excuse it, I know. you're very good, incidentally. --Seja430 21:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petros, I answered your question about my motivation to move from the Dutch Wikipedia to the English one on my talk page. RexNL 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I'm a completely neutral party to this situation, I'm only here because your page got added to my watchlist when I moved the comment above from your userpage (picked up while RC patrolling) and happened to notice your reverting of comments. I am not commenting on the right or wrong of the aladin article and related afd's etc.

What I do wish to see is I can help both or either of you come to some sort of understanding. I am not trying to blame anyone, I have nothing against either you or Elonka; I've never had anything to do with either of you before now. Whilst you might be thinking that it is therefore non of my business to get involved, I believe that having an outside person take a look can be very helpful.

So a couple of questions for you to help clarify some of what I'm reading:

• Which policies were you referring to when you make the comment "I am sorry that you don't understand policies and are upset with me for pointing them out to you" on User talk:Elonka?

And:

• Where did you point out those policies?

I would suggest that removing comments from talk pages is not the best attitude to take, as suggested by Wikipedia:Resolving disputes that says the first step to resolving disputes is the use of talk pages, and Wikipedia:Talk pages#Can I do whatever I want to my own talk page?).

Please feel free to reply here or to my talk page. Thanks, Petros471 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it is none of your business. The policies were pointed out to her on her own talk page and the talk page of the article in question. She simply responded by claiming something entirely oipposite and false, claimed the admin who counted votes said something he clearly did not, and was argumentative in general trying to place blame and make false accusations instead of anything useful. I gave her her chance, and when it was clear that she was not out to listen or try to be reasonable, and she insisted upon placing accusatory language here, I told her to stop posting here, which is fully within my right. Removing comments from editors who are only out to harass and who do not listen to reason clearly is the best route to take... It has been confirmed by any number of admins and members of Arbcom that editors can and should remove comments from their own talk pages in circunstances like these. Quoting the "first step" to resolving a dispute isn;t helpful when the first attempts were already tried and failed, and especially when it's clear the party in question has no desire to resolve anything but solely to make false threats and personal attacks. At this point she has become someone out solely to harass, so I remove the comments. Believe you me, I have been in enough conflicts with problem editors to know what is and is not appropriate. Please do not try to lecture me on my own talk page when I've already been through all this over and over and know what to do, thank you very much, and especially when according to the welcome notice above you've only been on this site for about a month and a half. I've been dealing with problem editors for a year as a registered member and probably another year before that. If you would like to respond to this message, please post here and not on my talk page, which is reserved for more important matters. DreamGuy 15:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petros, thank you for trying to help mediate the situation. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed, since DreamGuy keeps refusing to discuss things in good faith. Do you think it would be helpful if I posted the history of my statements to DreamGuy, along with his replies (or lack thereof) here on your user page? It might be easier to follow the thread, but then again it would be a lot of information, and of course DreamGuy will probably heap more abuse on both of us, so if you would rather not get involved, I understand. Thanks for trying though! Elonka 03:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem. Same text, different name :) - Bobet 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]