User talk:Peter/Archive1

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, you are welcome to bring it up on my active talk page.

Full archive index

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:

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[edit]

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

welcome as well[edit]

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]

Barnstar[edit]

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

Fir e Fox 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warnings[edit]

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! ➨ ❝R E DVERS❞ 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]

Protection[edit]

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]

Quantum mechanics: Wavefunction changes with time[edit]

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]

Captain Marvel protection/history[edit]

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]

Dragon Age stuff[edit]

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?

Wow you're fast![edit]

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]

Single names[edit]

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]

Your Userpage[edit]

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]

RfA[edit]

The Neokid would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact The Neokid to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Petros471. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

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 think you're inexperienced?[edit]

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]

User warnings[edit]

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]

vandalism &c[edit]

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]

Answered your question[edit]

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]

Posts removed[edit]

All posts in this section can be viewed in the permanent link archive format in this version of this page.

User talk:209.232.144.1[edit]

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

Posts removed[edit]

All posts in this section can be viewed in the permanent link archive format in this version of this page.

Thanks[edit]

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[edit]

thanks for your follow-up questions, ive now posted respones on my rfa :)Benon 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I'll head over there soon to cast my vote. --Petros471 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the support vote on my rfa it was appricated along with the lovley comments :)Benon 16:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From 156.33.96.28[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]