An article that you have been involved in editing, Constant, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constant. Thank you.

Thank you for the changes to Sjörup Runestone. I'm new to Wikipedia and I could not figure out how to place the pictures properly, but now I know :-). OlHen 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Excellent that you also uploaded a picture of Länsstyrelsen's sign. /Pieter Kuiper 19:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to read the references on Haguna again. They are listed on the right of the linked page (works by Lena Peterson). Moreover, engaging in reverting another editor based on following his edits like you have done on Suiones can be understood as Wp:stalking and is frowned upon on WP.--Berig 07:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, as a courtesy, I will make it even easier for you to read the references by providing their specific URLs:

• http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=2081
• http://www.sofi.se/servlet/GetDoc?meta_id=2081

Have a nice read.--Berig 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I stumble on 'your turf'? I am not stalking, I do not even know who you are. Now I know that you are probably a bit too sensitive about your own texts for being an editor on Wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper 08:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop redirecting pages relating to the name Haguna until you have familiarized yourself with the matter.--Berig 10:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you seem to insist that Haguna is a disambiguation page, that should be bypassed. I was just doing your wish, I thought. /Pieter Kuiper 10:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pieter Kuiper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- a belated welcome to a physicist; my education was in physics, so we have some common ground. I have worked in the semiconductor industry, electro-optics, and machine vision, years ago. I watch a few of the physics pages and look forward to reading your contributions. --Ancheta Wis 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I like it here, and the editing discussions are useful and lead to greater clarity. Now I remember, you made the comment on Talk:Maxwell's equations#Greek characters on keyboard. I hope to see you around. /Pieter Kuiper 00:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see that you posted a third opinion request for a disagreement on Talk:Gothiscandza. However, when I visited that talk page, all I saw was your post of the map saying it would be good for the page. Nobody had disagreed with that (or even replied at all), so I'm sorely confused as to what disagreement you're referring to. Since 3o is intended to mediate disputes between two editors, the request for 3o has been removed from the 3o page. You can always re-add it if someone disputes the map with you. --Darkwind (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My opponent is just reverting every attempt by me to include this map, being incoherent in the edit summaries. /Pieter Kuiper 17:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user ("opponent" with a different username) also altered Kuiper's post. I restored the post, commented on talk page guidelines on the article talk page, and restored the request for a third opinion. — Athaenara ✉ 20:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tut tut --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting that article on my watch list now. /Pieter Kuiper 22:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - and thanks for your vigilance on Rydberg formula. I have blocked the 2nd Ripenet sockpuppet and semiprotected the page for a week. Should be quiet there for a bit. Keep a watch on it and help me remember to remove the sprot tag when it expires. Cheers, Vsmith 01:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, semiprotection might work, thank you. I got interested in Janne Rydberg when I was teaching in Halmstad where he was born, and gathered some information about him that is now here. I will try to remember to remind you. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper 06:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your delete succeeds, then you can unwiki link. Not before. Furthermore, instead of de-linking, it would be better to convert the deleted article to a redirect to an appropriate section. So I reverted the de-linkings. Dicklyon 17:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not make sense to have a wikilink from Zener diode to reverse-biased. All the information is in the first article, the same figure is also there. If a users followed such a link, that user would only be annoyed by the duplication. /Pieter Kuiper 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the point where reverse biased is used in the Zener diode article, it is undefined. A link to a general discussion of PN junction reverse bias would be useful there. Anyway, what you do at Zener diode is an independent issue that should not affect what you do with reverse bias and other links to it. Dicklyon 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "I don't think this page should exist", even if for a good editorial reason ("the content is already covered somewhere else") is not even close to any of the very specific and limitted speedy-deletion criteria. Perhaps you meant to use one of the other deletion processes, or to discuss the already-proposed merger? DMacks 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I changed to the prod template. /Pieter Kuiper 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, fully in agreement with this. We have too many articles which suffer from that problem. If you're meaning to tag them all, you'll be a busy man. Best of luck! Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The problem is that their is often tenacious opposition on wikipedia against cutting in the myths surrounding a historical core. I will contact you when I need help. I happened to see the In-universe-template in a different context, and I believe it is very useful for the Icelandic stuff. /Pieter Kuiper 12:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted by this RfD. There wasn't any history of the family, it was a poorly formatted list of people; suspected copyvio. --Brownout ^(msg) 09:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! /Pieter Kuiper 10:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nysvenska movement.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small remininder regarding this comment, please remember not to bite the newbies. Regards, henrik•talk 16:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Tommysollen (talk · contribs) is identical or close to 85.229.16.12 (talk · contribs); all their contributions were hyping a site (that Sollén is editing) as "official" and "first". If he really is employed by a national Tourism Board or something, I do not think his edits on wikipedia are good PR. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's a good idea? At least in the title e.g. Plank constant
Randomblue (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. First of all bold wikilinks do not look good. Second, the reader is not helped by a link to the article constant. If he wants to read more, he should first of all click physical constant, which is in the same sentence. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a specific reason why you are pushing an anti-Assyrian agenda, constantly taking the side of the religious fanatics in this dispute? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not taking sides in the conflict. You are partizan, and a radical Assyrian nationalist (your Swedish talk page). You are not very tolerant of Syriacs that do not want to align with you cause and your self-designation as Assyrian. That would be fine on your own web site, but it is disruptive on wikipedia. That is why you were blocked for a day on Swedish wikipedia- /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that's beside the point. Whatever I personally have an opinion about nationalism (I'm not a radical nationalist, but I advocate radical nationalism, big difference), isn't what this is about. On Wikipedia we source content. You on the other hand, want to delete this content, not because it's unsourced (it's sourced), but because you yourself are quite partizan, namely, anti-Nationalism. I can be a nationalist all I like; that's beside the point. What matters is the content I cite and its reliability. You have no right whatsoever to delete it if it's well-cited and academic sources. If you want to piss off nationalist, go and delete content of Zionism related articles. There are lots of radical Zionists here running around and pushing their agenda, but for some reason they get free hands. Bottom line is, don't run around and delete content and links, like for instance, like you did here.[1] Such behaviour will indeed be mistaken for vandalism, and you can possibly also face arbitration if you keep this up. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 23:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:EliasAlucard has accused youf of stalking ahim on the Assyrian-related articles. Please refrian from this behavior at once. Smith Jones (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I cannot refrain, as I have not been stalking Alucard. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that and you know that, but until he figures that out where pretty much at risk ehre. i have noticed a tendency for some admins to hand out brief block in order to head off a potential flame war and i am trying to get you to avoid that. i recommend not interacitng with User:EliasAlucard at all. when you post on talk pages for articles that he is also working on, try to address your issues to the community as a whole instead of discussing with him since it is clear that any further communicado between you too will probably end up with at least a topic ban and something worse and I don't wnat that to happen to you. Smith Jones (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is most certainly stalking me and running around and editing and trying to delete just about anything Assyrian. Look for instance at his recent delete vote here, somehow implying he's against the Assyrian minority. On top of that, he's been trying to delete all kinds of things, such as en:Image:Mor Marqos Monastery Assyrian.jpg simply because I uploaded it, with the false motivation that it was a manipulated image (see discussion [2]) somehow insinuating that I've been dishonest. This is clearly against WP:AGF and I was vindicated by an Israeli user uploading a new picture of the sign: en:Image:Asyrian convent road sign.jpg. Look, this user is just seeking trouble, running around and deleting (or trying to delete) anything that is related to Assyrian just to piss me off, and revert my edits. He is constantly keeping track on my edits and fishing for trouble. He is in no way related to modern Assyrians and he has no real interest in this subject if it weren't for me. Someone should tell him to back off because he really has nothing to do with this. We have other admins who are seriously involved in this subject and we don't need Pieter here obsessively running around and deleting content (sourced content might I add) just because I added the content. It's no coincidence that he's pretty much entirely deleting content I've added. Clearly, stalking. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all work together. If Pieter is interested in Assyrian related pages, it would be great to have him in the WikiProject. As long as he has good intentions, there is no reason why we can't all work together. Chaldean (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good intentions? He's running around and deleting content, with motivations like "who cares". How is that a serious editor? — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 05:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: EliasAlucard got himself permanently banned on Swedish wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that give you the right to stalk me? If you want to see me get banned here as well, that may perhaps happen some day. But until that day comes, don't stalk me. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 10:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bör genast flyttas tillbaka. Syrianerna har aldrig någonsin i hela deras liv brytt sig om att arbeta politiskt för någon självständighet. Det har alltid varit den assyriska sidan (inom syrisk ortodoxa, endast de som identifierar sig som assyrier), som har haft någon som helst medverkan och tagit en självständighet på allvar. Låtsasaraméerna, har aldrig brytt sig om detta. För övrigt, så har artikeln sv:Assyrier blivit ett POV-skämt numera, men det var väl lite det som var poängen också efter att syriantöntarna tog över den. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 11:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that sv:Assyriska/syrianska självständigheten should be moved back, but there is no immediate hurry (Assyrian independence is not imminent). Moving back will probably require access to administrator privileges. I think I will request the move this evening. And yes, sv:Assyrier/syrianer needs improvement to become an informative article about a diverse ethnic group. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, you need to get sv:Användare:SuryoyoOromoyo, sv:Användare:Oromoyo, sv:Användare:TriZ, and similar users banned. They're not there to contribute seriously and professionally with sources, and they're not there to work with dedication on other articles. These are POV-magnet users who are only there to impose their POV on the articles. Furthermore, I should be unblocked if you're going to allow these guys to mess up the articles and all the hard work I put into them. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I requested that SuryoyoOromoyo be blocked, day before that Bloodcheif. It is a pity that you guys are more preoccupied with claiming cultures than intent on explaining your culture. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't always like this. Some of us believe that the modern state of Syria, has an involvement in this, with the intent of using the divide and rule method on us, and thereby, weakening Assyrian nationalism (which, if allowed to grow, could become a potential threat to the Arab state of Syria). This naming dispute blossomed increasingly after the independence of the state of Syria, and recently, it came to be known that Saddam had Iraqi spies in Sweden on Assyrians (which can be seen in Nuri Kino's documentary). It wouldn't be difficult to explain our culture, were it not for the fact that the name dispute pops up every three months or so in EVERY related article, which makes it nearly impossible to seriously work on and expand the articles, because we're constantly slowed down by this nonsense. I also think that the permanent block was too harsh, especially seeing how I've been a serious contributor on various articles, for over 3 years. These punks have been driving me crazy lately with their Ephrem the Syrian and Aramaeans nonsense, and it's not my fault that I feel like persecuting them sometimes. — EliasAlucard (Discussion · contribs) 14:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter: Please take a look at vacuum permittivity, especially footnote 17, and free space and see if you agree with them. The basic idea, and one understood by the originator of the free space article (but not by me), is that free space is a reference state, like absolute zero, unattainable in principle, yet a baseline for measurement in real cases. Brews ohare (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brews, I am by no means an expert. I was surprised by the expression "the vacuum of free space" in the lead, but googling shows that this phrase does occur, also often in this electromagnetic context. I do not quite understand what the US patent office means. Certainly they cannot mean that oceans or the earth as media to be regarded as free space. I think I would read the glossary as "substantially unimpeded [by obstacles or media] such as the atmosphere, the oceans or the earth." Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't paid much attention to the US Patent Office subsection. I've relabeled it and removed the odd last sentence which needed some clarification I could not provide.

Mainly I am interested in the view that free space is unattainable, which seems very well established by the article. That has impact upon the EM articles, particularly those related to SI units. If free space is an unattainable state, approached only as a limiting case by terrestrial vacuum, then the standards set up for the meter, speed of light and the ampere all must be referred to this standard state. That can be done only by applying corrections to bring the real physical situation into harmony with free space.

For example, if the meter is measured in laboratory "vacuum", the speed of light must be corrected by the relative permittivity of laboratory "vacuum". That means you must have information about this relative permittivity. The relative permittivity is established (in thought) by measuring a capacitor in free space and comparing with the same capacitor in the laboratory "vacuum". However, in practice this experiment cannot be done because free space is unattainable. Therefore, one has to theoretically estimate the relative permittivity and make a correction. That correction might involve, for example, measuring the capacitance in a "standard" vacuum and applying a "standard" (that is, presently accepted) correction. However, the BIPM says only that a correction must be made, and does not specify how the correction is to be established.

Your thoughts? Brews ohare (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting for residual gas should not be difficult. One just does a measurement (of for example a distance between two mirrors) as a function of pressure, and extrapolates to zero pressure. In practice this does not play much of a role. The refractive index of air at STP is 1.0003. It is easy to reduce the pressure by a factor of a million (milli-Torr). If that is not good enough, one can reduce it by another factor of a million. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pieter: Or, one could plot against pressure and do a least-squares extrapolation to zero pressure? That would be a simple-minded "theoretical" correction, eh?

It seems to me that you are in agreement with the free space article, then? The next issue is the impact of free space upon electric constant and magnetic constant. For example, it seems clear that free space should be (i) linear (ii) isotropic. It seems clear that measurements of the properties of the vacuum state are irrelevant to the definition of free space, although, if there were large predicted effects, they might affect the "corrections" applied to the standards to bring them into harmony with free space. Any comments? Brews ohare (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for drawing my attention to these articles. I confess that looking at them is not encouraging. Not only are many Wiki articles incomplete, or missing altogether, some are half-baked. And changing things sometimes involves interminable arguments over things that should be obvious. (Of course, sometimes the arguments have a point, and I guess that is why I haven't quit trying.) It is discouraging. Brews ohare (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is frustrating, and I feel less involved with English wikipedia because of it. I am more at home at Swedish and Dutch wikipedia. However, the German wikipedia is more influential, and I started trying to resurrect de:Elektrische Feldkonstante as a separate article there. Next day this article was proposed for deletion. Ah well, we will see what happens. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pieter, i'm doing some work on Rydberg atom at the moment (see here for work in progress), but I am confused by the diagram you added a while ago. Why is the 5s orbit not a straight line? As drawn it surely has finite angular momentum. Is this just a result of the failings of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model? I really like the concept of the diagram and think it is nice to make the comparison with the fully classical trajectory in the final section. I would appreciate your thoughts on this.--DJIndica (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I see that the link to the pages by Lorenzo Curtis is dead. Only some of it is archived here. I would need to look at his book again to say something accurate, but handwavingly I can say that it is related to uncertainty and projection. A classical straight line would always give , and that would not be right for a semi-classical trajectory. I have a feeling that it is also related to the term (the values in the figure are halfway between the factors that differ by unity) but maybe that was just my own thoughts... (with all possible reservations, you understand, don't quote me, try to read Curtis.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this paper the eccentricity of a semiclassical orbit can be obtained from:

.

This implies that the 1s orbit is a circle! As n increases, the eccentricity of the ns orbit increases as

.

This means that the ns orbit is only a straight line for n=∞. In short, I am now convinced that your diagram is correct as drawn. It seems that the counterintuitive fact that a particle on a curved path has no angular momentum is just a result of the collision of the classical and quantum concepts of angular momentum.

If I could ask one more question: I have always in the past uploaded images as .png files and am now trying out the .svg alternative. I have created an image in Mathematica, but the exported .svg displays brackets incorrectly in the firefox browser. Presumably this is a problem with non-standard fonts. On your wikimedia commons page you express an interest in manually created .svg files; do you know where I can find the code for common symbols like ),(,/,\,...? Thanks!--DJIndica (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the 1s-orbital the semi-classical image breaks down completely. Yes, it is in the category "circular orbits" because but it also lacks angular momentum. My private semiclassical view is that it has a rapidly precessing perihelium, in all three dimensions, creating a spherical density cloud.

As you probably noticed, Firefox does not display the in the figure correctly, but the commons conversion to .jpg thumbs works fine. You can see the source of Media:Sommerfeld ellipses.svg by just clicking "source" under the "view" menu. I know I have tried Mathematica, but I gave up and I do not really remember what the problem was. Also, commons:Category:SVG graphics by software used does not have a category for Mathematica-generated files. But if you succeed, you ought to create such a directory there! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Danny La Rue.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing your picture here, but the "Legend" and "Grön eld" are very similar works and I think the other picture is better. Not as good as it could be (googling brings up better views), but the light in the glass is better than in your picture, where the sculpture is rather dark and the sunlit building in the background is distracting (unless the sculpture is very badly situated, it should be possible to take a better image at another time of day). --Hegvald (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the new one is much better. I should try "Legend" again in the summer. I also changed to "Grön eld" in sv:Vicke Lindstrands monumentalskulpturer. The Växjö sculpture had first been planned for the town square, later to a monumental basin with surround glass sculptures, and ended up in a tub. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the talk (it's in the history, but is blanked). The content of the article is almost entirely historical fiction, you are correct, though there was an "Honour" of Richmond. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted it into a redirect and protected it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for the notification. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Peter. Unlike the Commons, EnWiki has a WP:BLP policy that precludes use of images that are harmful to living people, even if their actual defamatory status would need a court case to determine. I understand you are more at home in Commons, which does not have such a strong policy defending living people. May I suggest you review WP:BLP? Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, Avi is wrong to call a Reductio ad absurdum "biographical material." There is precedent for this, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. If you restore the image on this artist's page, let me know, and I'll support you. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Right now the image is deleted on Commons, in a clear violation of Commons policies. Some level-headed administrators are trying to get it undeleted, see commons:Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, BLP does apply to images, whether they are absurd or not. Secondly, the EnWiki discussion is independant of the Commons deletion; we have stronger requirements here than we do at the Commons. Thirdly, Pieter's representation of the debate as being a "clear violation" is somewhat misrepresentative as the majority of opinions on the Commons remain in agreement that the image's deletion was proper. However level-headed or not Pieter may believe those who disagree with him are, that is a discussion for the Commons, not EnWiki. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support you in this. User:Avi is wrong to call this image "biographical material" as he did in the debate to remove it from the article on the artist Carlos Latuff. There is precedent for allowing things like this to be shown (see above). Avi seems incapable of careful and judicious consideration in other debates (see the recent one on antisemitism and his threats on User_talk:65.246.126.130#March_2009) and should have his Admin powers limited to non-Jewish, non-religious, non-political topics, or simply ended. -74.242.253.110 (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Sorry you got dragged into this, Pieter. The IPs above and below are the same person, by the way, not different people (The 65. and the 74.'s) -- Avi (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you'd agree this mess is Avi's creation. -74.242.252.249 (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Avi trying to kill something else implicating Israel. Need your help saving Unholy Alliance (geopolitical) which is on the list at WP:RESCUE. -74.242.252.249 (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check w:index.php?title=Arundhati_Roy&action=history and revert to include latest info about Roy's list. Each objection is carefully addressed, then the edit gets reverted anyway by two editors working in tandem. Thanks, 74.162.153.220 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at things over at Hacker (folklore) from a Wikipedia policy point of view, despite our occasional differences over at Swedish Wikipedia. Tomas e (talk) 10:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiglaf/Berig's behaviour may seem surprising, but something similar happened at Talk:Ongentheow#Linking to Swedish WP - stonewalling until the single editor is joined by someone else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dag Pieter. mvg. Materialscientist (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Materialscientist! Hartelijke groeten - ik probeer me te herinneren of ik een fysicus ken die goed is in het fotograferen van vogels. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neen, we kennen elkaar niet. Gewoon een vaste-stoffysicus die nog steeds Nederlands spreken kan :). Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Uit België misschien? Ik heb een niet-naar-commons sjabloon op jouw Atomiumfoto gezet, vanwege commons:Atomium. Ik zag dat je een kommentaar van mij had doorgestreept. Ik bedoelde slechts te vragen of hij behalve onderzoek ook onderwijs deed. Wanneer men op wikipedia over natuurkunde schrijft, moet men zich niet tot vakgenoten in hetzelfde onderzoeksgebied richten. Het moet pedagogisch zijn, "educational use" hebben. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jawel, België. Die vraag is zekker redelijk, maar niet bij Afd, niet in het midden van een oorloog. Het klinkt alsof "wie ben je" (om bvb dat op WP te schrijven). De titel (professor of niet) bedoelt niks op WP (voor mij ook niet - ik heb een aantal hier ontmoet die nawelijks professioneel zijn). Die persoon gelooft sterk dat hij professioneel is, en dat openbaar twijfelen zou ik niet doen, maar dat zachtjes demonstreren, door wetenschappelijke argumenten, kan wel ! Materialscientist (talk) 07:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you very kindly not to revert edits, like you did here, without discussion. You also removed relevant text which has a valid source. Such edits are considered disrespectful to other users and disruptive to the project. I'm sure that's not how you meant to look. Several of us are at a loss to understand what you meant by "excuse", etc. If you have a valid source about the fire and want to make a change, discuss it and quote your source, please! Discussions should also be on the article duíscussion pages. We should actually never have to write to each other like this. Regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1697 fire just does not have anything to do with Sune Sik. "Several of us"? You and your puppets? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's easy to see what that phrase had to do with Sune Sik. You shouldnt have deleted it. And Pieter, I have been looking through your actions on Wikipedia. To me it seems like you delete text just to piss people off. Grow up please! 83.248.196.229 (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are an established editor here, so I am not sure why I have to do this, but for the record, removing information that is relevant and properly sourced, even categories, for a personal political or otherwise view is a violation of many English wikipedia policies and guidelines, including: WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:DE etc. Please remember that EnWIki is not the commons, and that we have different policies and guidelines here. Further disregard of the English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines may result in measures taken to protect the project. -- Avi (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The heavy hand of an editor/administrator with an agenda, see edit history of the article Carlos Latuff. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you are not already a member, would you consider joining the project? There is a current discussion about how to fill leadership positions in the project.Likebox (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will not join as long as Headbomb would seem to represent the members on that list. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please join, as it is a self-appointed title, and it should be easy to get others to have more representation. I have proposed a list of technical topics that are in desperate need of mathematical exposition. Looking over your professional interests, you might be perfectly positioned to write an article on ARPES, especially regarding HighTc materials. I hope that administrative minutia don't distract from this project--- it really is an important and noble thing.Likebox (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can join as "Condensed matter theory coordinator" if you are uncomfortable about headbomb's position (or lead coordinator if you like, and I will switch to "High energy physics coordinator").Likebox (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such ambitions. I find it difficult to edit on enwp, and it is especially difficult in physics. I am mostly active on commons now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand. The titles will go away soon, and hopefully nobody will claim to speak for anybody else.Likebox (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I never claim to speak for anybody else, so stop pretending that I do or ever did. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Aaron Saxton. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Cirt (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you are trying to irritate me. Your "1975" is wrong. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make wholly unsourced changes to articles on Wikipedia. Especially not to WP:BLPs, as you just did. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You calculated the wrong year. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made an unsourced change. To a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You invented a spurious fact in a fact box on a WP:BLP page. That is rather serious. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1991 - 16 = 1975. However, I have removed it, as not directly stated. Please do not make unsourced changes to WP:BLP articles on Wikipedia again, or I will report you to WP:ANI. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are rather threatening, probably just to tick me off, so that you can report me for incivility. Anyway, Saxton was born 1974. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, source for this claim? -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google, and thou shalt find. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It would have been more helpful for you to be more specific. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. You've taken an interest in my work and appear to be skeptical of its validity. Let's talk this over and iron things out. It's probably just good faith misunderstanding. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to inflate the importance of a kid, just because I nominated a stash of 17 YouTube videos for deletion in commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Interview Aaron Saxton part 1 of 7.ogv. You know very well that Saxton does not qualify in the select list of List of Scientologists#Officials, when one looks at the others mentioned there. He seems to have lost any rank that he had when he was 21. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth highlighting that "past" and "present" are not readily distinguished on Wikipedia - see WP:NTEMP. For example, we do not delete one-term state/province politicians simply because they were defeated in office (or did not run) 25 or 30 years ago and have not been heard or seen since. Orderinchaos 06:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_Pieter_Kuiper. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please see my questions at WP:AE#Comments by others about the request concerning Pieter Kuiper. Thanks,  Sandstein  22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this warning in the AE thread which explains why you may be made subject to sanctions under WP:ARBSCI#Discretionary topic ban and/or WP:COFS#Article probation unless you change your mode of editing.  Sandstein  05:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Pieter_Kuiper_2. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While your request to have this image restored from the local copy is technically possible, there is a major problem with performing this action. The copyright information on the accompanying file page contains outdated, and according to the deletion discussion on Commons incorrect, copyright information. Thus without updated copyright information all that an undeletion will result in an image needing to be deleted. As it makes no sense to perform an undeletion simply to have to turn around and have to delete the image again.

If you or another interested party could provide usable copyright information, complete with the information and sources needed to verify the images copyright status, then I would be willing to perform an undeletion. Until then I have no basis to doubt the decision made by the Commons administrators and I lack the time and background needed to provide the copyright information myself. --Allen3 ^talk 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this AE thread, you are banned from editing Scientology and all related discussions and other content (including talk pages and process discussions, except only for legitimate and necessary dispute resolution involving yourself) for two weeks. This sanction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. Tim Song (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Raven Manet E2.jpg 2 You'll have to vote again Pieter : ( cygnis insignis 11:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your words of support in the recent suit by Physchim62. This suit was closed without action being taken, and without reprimand of Physchim62 for using ArbCom as harassment, and no caution was provided for attributing false statements to me and refusing to retract them. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. That outcome was surprisingly sensible. I have just been topic-blocked for a few weeks for Scientology. As the subject is not a core interest of mine anyway, it would be useless to embark on the burocratic appeal process. I will just let it be. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If gunshots are too noisy, it's not the hunters, it's the duck. No duck, no noise. Brews ohare (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting version of WP:DUCK. As to your denouncer, look at Talk:Vacuum permeability#Wholesale revert of Physchim62's changes. That is why I have despaired of accomplishing anything on enwp. The best one can do to correct the most glaring errors. I concentrate on images instead, as I see you are also doing now. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be in violation of this policy Count Iblis (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am becoming more and more aware of that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which concerns you has been opened here. Should you choose to comment there, I advise you to avoid gratuitious insults or other personal attacks. Physchim62 (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! You are attacking me! /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to deal with other users in a respectful manner. You're being quite condescending and rude, even if you are right about the underlying issue. WP:CIVIL is policy. Follow it. AniMate 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The guy should read a schoolbook and educate himself instead of whining that he is not being treated with respect. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine for you to think that, but you don't have to be a dick and say it. AniMate 18:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the proper procedure would have been to report him to some board for vandalizing articles. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, it really would be a big help if you could use a less abrasive style. It's better to just point out errors in a matter-of-fact way. You are right that if someone is making a lot of elementary editing errors based on not understanding the subject, then yes, they should study it a bit more before editing about it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that he was treated with great patience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Electromagnetism. Did it help any? Look here. He still thinks he knows better than all textbooks. And that he does not need to read them. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the problem is; it's just that the way you're trying to deal with it simply doesn't work very well. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest instead? Patient explanations have not had the desired effect. Try to get him blocked for vandalism? Or a topic block? I do not think that would succeed, as these are "just content disputes". Keeping a watchful eye on his edits, questioning everything that was not well supported? He probably would report me for stalking. All these ways of dealing with just one editor would require a major effort, and it would be a giant waste of time anyway. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's vandalising the articles. Revert with the summary " removing factual mistakes" . Theresa Knott | token threats 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless more is going on than I know about, I don't see any deliberate vandalism (messing up an article on purpose), just some well-intended errors. Revert such errors with a brief explanation in the edit summary, or on the talk page if necessary. Physchim62, please try to understand that everyone makes errors, but if you're making large numbers of them, it's best to change your editing style. One approach is if you think you see a problem in an article, just post about it to the talk page instead of trying to fix it directly, since it might not actually be a problem. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not deliberately vandalising the article, but he definitely fucked that article up big time.Theresa Knott | token threats 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim is an experienced Wiki editor of scientific articles. Even if he were to have gotten the idea that the force is proportional to 1/r^2, he would normally not have changed the article. I'm sure that he would have looked at history of the article first to see if the artcle is an established article and if there have been unreverted problematic changes in the recent past. So, this can only have been an April 1 joke. Count Iblis (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. An experienced editor knows that making joke edits to articles isn't on. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis is just being charitable. Which is a very noble trait. Very civil. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, AGF and avoid unnecessary drama. Can we stop? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pieter, now for something completely different ... could you help me with some Swedish translations? I currently have an article at GA review, and because it was a Sveriges Radio project, some of the detailed info is only available in Swedish-language sources. Google translate is some help to get the gist of what is being said, but not really reliable enough to base an article on. (The article in question is The Seduction of Ingmar Bergman.) If I could pick your brain from time to time, that would be great, just to check I've got the meaning right. :) Best, --JN466 12:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, interesting project, I will be happy to help. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pieter Kuiper!

I have just noticed something you may be interested in. User:SergeWoodzing have just removed an image from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark without discussion or consensus. I have qustioned this per resons given on Talk:Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. You may remember, that sv:User:EmilEikS had the very same discussion at sv:diskussion:Sofia Magdalena av Danmark. User:SergeWoodzing used the same claims to remove the image here (without discussion). As this removal is likely to cause less debate here, as this is not Swedish wp and people may not be as engaged in it here, I hope I am not breaking any rules by drawing your attention to this. It seems unfair somehow that it can be removed so easily from here, when the matter has been discussed on Swedish wp, just because the deletetion goes unoticed here. I hope I have done nothing wrong. My best wishes! --85.226.44.13 (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]