Welcome!
Hello Peter/Archive1, 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)
welcome
welcome to wikipedia, thank you for fixing typos LegCircus 21:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
welcome as well
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)
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)
Barnstar
Congratulations!!! You've earned yourself a barnstar! |
FireFox 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism warnings
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)
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)
Protection
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)
Cool, I'm off now anyway. --Petros471 22:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Quantum mechanics: Wavefunction changes with time
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)
Thanks for checking that. I still not really got my head around quantum mechanics... --Petros471 18:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
Captain Marvel protection/history
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)
Dragon Age stuff
I've replied to your replies... (I'm not sure if this got sent privately properly, sorry)
--Toonstruck 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing the sigs up for me... do edits also show up with the orange notification?
Wow you're fast!
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)
Single names
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)
Your Userpage
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)
RfA
I looked through your contibutions, and it looks like you deserve this. The Neokid Talk 18:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. You must accept before I can move the nomination to the main nominations page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.
You think you're inexperienced?
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)
User warnings
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)
vandalism &c
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)
Answered your question
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)
User:Elonka, moved fom my talk page to here
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)
- 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)
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)
Oh, no problem. Same text, different name :) - Bobet 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
You impersonating a mediator
I already told you this once or twice, but I am going to do it again to make it very clear: You are not a mediator here. You are a brand new editor. You have no official capacity here. You do not demonstrate any knowledge of appropriate policies. Therefore I most strongly object to this pretense of yours to running a "currently active" mediation between us. I do not take advice from new editors trying to pretend to be something they are not, nor will I enter into any mediation with someone I am simply ignoring due to her trollish behavior, especially not when the mediator is just some guy from nowhere who took it upon himself to play make believe. Remove that page pretending to be mediation, remove the notice of mediation above, and do not post to my talk page again about this matter or else I will have real admins who undertsand policies here step in and take it from here. DreamGuy 15:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Petros471, I am a "real admin who understands policies", and, despite DreamGuy's comments, on Wikipedia anyone is welcome to attempt to informally mediate disputes. Indeed, it is an admirable thing to try, even for an editor who hasn't been here that long. However, if one party refuses to take part, then mediation can't really continue, and it's unwise to present it as such. Accordingly, I'd suggest the "mediation" page above be moved to User:Elonka's subpage. — Matt Crypto 15:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea, Matt. Petros, with your permission, may I move the page? I suggest moving it to: User:Elonka/DreamGuy dispute Elonka 15:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Page now moved per above suggestion. I will post a full reply shortly (will be away from computer again for a while). --Petros471 16:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Petros. :) Elonka 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- DreamGuy: I accept that you don't want me to try and help in this situation. I was offering it on an informal basis, and was not attempting to act in any sort of 'official' capacity. I apologise if it appeared that I was, and not simply trying to help. I will respect your request not to post again on your talk page, I would not have done so anyway after reading this edit summary. I will also say that you might help new editors become more familiar with the policies you say they are not familiar with if you actually post links to them, and say in what way they are not being understood and/or followed. --Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have moved the page I created as per Matt Cryto's suggestion, I trust his advice as an admin. The reason I put 'in progress' next to it was because I wanted to make it clear new posts might be added to it, and it wasn't a simple archive. The reason I created a sub page at all was to allow discussion to take place in one place and not rapidly fill up my main talk page. I realise now the wording of it was rather unfortunate as I did not intend it to be in any way an 'official' mediation attempt. --Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Couple thoughts on mediation.. I'd move User talk:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka to User:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka if I were you. As it is now, there's no talk page, because the mediation page IS the talk page. Also, is mediation really what you're trying to do? It's labelled mediation, but it sure looks a lot like an RFC to me. What specific dispute are you trying to mediate? Mediation is meant for situations where the parties want mediation. Friday (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- PS. the move suggestion isn't meant to imply that I "approve" of the page in any way. It may be best to just remove it. I was going to leave a note on the talk page saying that it doesn't really look like a mediation attempt, but since the talk page was occupied, I left this note here. Friday (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. It was only created as a talk page because I make it a subpage from this (my main) talk page. Meant for the purpose of talking about a specific topic. I believe the rest of your comments have been addressed elsewhere, however if you have any further follow up feel free to ask for clarification. --Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediation 2
Petros, I agree with Friday that mediation isn't really what you're trying to do. I hereby request you to immediately cease those mediation attempts. I'm sure they're well meant, but all mediation on Wikipedia has as a necessary prerequisite the agreement of both sides to take part in the process. You don't have DreamGuy's agreement, in fact he has repatedly urged you to butt out. I suggest you comply right now, by adding a {{delete}}template to your inappropriately named subpage User talk:Petros471/Mediation between DreamGuy and Elonka, and I will gladly delete it for you. (I have already invited Elonka to move her material on it to a more discreet page in her own userspace, since it's nature suggests that she's preparing confrontation rather than mediation.)
DreamGuy obviously a) doesn't feel any need for mediation with Elonka at all, and b) specifically doesn't want it from you, because you have no official standing and also appear to be a fairly inexperienced editor. That's his prerogative; it doesn't matter why he doesn't want it, it should be enough for you that he doesn't. I'm not so concerned with official standing, for my part; basically, anybody can mediate on Wikipedia, if they're good at it. But your creation of that page, which is frankly more of an attack page or a young RFAR, doesn't suggest to me personally that you're very experienced with mediation, in the sense the word has on Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia:Mediation. Your input on the page hardly looks impartial to an uninvolved user such as myself. And that you insist, against DreamGuy's declining the favour, that he must take part because "Elonka is not a troll" is totally against the whole spirit of mediation, the essence of which is impartiality. And please don't post on DreamGuy's page any more. I know it can be hard to judge how your tone in writing appears to others, but to me you sound more threatening than conciliatory whenever you address him. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
- P. S. Could you please also remove the note above about the mediation, under "See also" ? Bishonen | talk 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
- I will stop attempting to mediate. Thank you for noting that it was meant well.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- As noted in my reply above I realise that the page was badly worded, which why I have now moved it, as per Matt Cryto's suggestion. I have not placed a speedy delete tag on it at the moment because it is acting as a redirect. I will be happy to do so when it is no longer needed for that purpose.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I in no way whatsoever meant that page to be an attack page, it was created as a place for DreamGuy and Elonka to talk things out, with any help that I might have been able to provide. Now that it is totally clear that DreamGuy has no interest in talking about this and helping come to some sort of conclusion (other than ignoring further contact with Elonka) there is no purpose for that page on my my userspace apart from the redirect detailed above. Now that page is in Elonka's userspace it is her responsibility to do with as she sees fit. I will also point out that the version you saw probably was not the version I created (take a look at the history, along with times and times of related postings). You are correct that I am not very experienced with mediation on Wikipedia, but I'm sure learning, and hope that this doesn't prevent me from helping the Wikipedia community in the future.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it certainly wasn't an attack page or a young RfAr when you created it; it took the form of an RfC/RfAr only after Elonka added that material to it (presumably because she's contemplating an RfC). — Matt Crypto 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:Mediation. It is most helpful when relevant pages are quoted.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry that I did not appear to be impartial, however it is one of my fundamental beliefs that all people should be treated fairly and I was in no way attempting to attack DreamGuy. As I originally pointed out the only reason I came across this was because I did moved a comment posted on DreamGuy's user page to his talk page while on RC patrol. It was not because I came from the whole aladin thing or anywhere else.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- "And that you insist, against DreamGuy's declining the favour, that he must take part..." I'm sorry but that is not what I said. I said "I would apreaciate it if you try and address this situation with good faith, not simply ignore it." Note the word appreciate, not the word 'must'. The work appreciate to me means that I would be very happy if... not must....--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Again I am sorry that I sounded threatening, and as I said before above, I will not post on his talk page again.--Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've signed all these points here and above separately in case anyone wants to reply to them individually (i.e. it will make it clearer who said what when). I am quite happy to go into further detail if necessary, or provide any clarification if anyone doesn't understand anything I have said. --Petros471 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your full and responsive answer, Petros. I would be glad to be rid of the redirect at the old name, too, but I won't make a point of it, I can see how it might be inconvenient. However, could you take a look at this page? It's a list of all the pages that link to the redirect. There are only six of them, the moved page itself and five usertalk pages. (There might be more than one link on some of them, I haven't checked.) Perhaps you'd consider changing those usertalk links by hand, and then having the redirect deleted? It seems to me that DreamGuy has a legitimate interest in not having the old name displayed unnecessarily on those pages in any case. Please just think it over, if you would. Bishonen | talk 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
- I did consider fixing the redirects before, however I didn't feel comfortable with the idea of editing other people's talk posts. In response to the above I have asked Elonka to change the link in posts that she made (as she made most of them). I will then review the remaining links, and consider adding a speedy tag then. Thank you for not pressing this matter to hard at this point. --Petros471 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you, Peter/Archive1 | ||
for voting in my RFA. It failed with a result of 31/11/2. Your RFA criteria were an interesting read, and I understand why you had to oppose me. If you have any comments, please say so here. |
my rfa
thanks for your follow-up questions, ive now posted respones on my rfa :)Benon 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I'll head over there soon to cast my vote. --Petros471 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for the support vote on my rfa it was appricated along with the lovley comments :)Benon 16:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
From 156.33.96.28
I apologize for my edits, I was new to the site and didn't realize that I was may be violating any rule. I will be sure and discuss any further edits that I may do in the future. Apologies
- Thank you for that. I'd be happy to help you with any further questions you may have. --Petros471 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
My question would be as to how I clear up the abuses that I unwittingly made. I feel really bad and would like for it to be fully cleared up. Can I be removed from the RFA as a bad faith?156.33.96.28 16:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was just writing the following:
My question would be as to how I clear up the abuses that I unwittingly made. I feel really bad and would like for it to be fully cleared up.
- One way to go about it would be to look at all the contributions you have made. Look at all the articles you have edited and see if any of the 'bad' edits you made are still present in the article (i.e. if you removed text that should still be there re-insert it, or remove text that you shouldn't have added). You can view all previous versions of an article by clicking on the history tab, and also and view differences between versions there. Hope that helps, Petros471 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
when you added the extra bit. By RFA do you mean request for arbitration? If so can you give me a link?
Sorry, I meant the RFC page, Request for Comment. In the meantime, I will make sure no edits that I have made are still there, but I believe that it was just that one 156.33.96.28 16:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)