User talk:Pieter Kuiper

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] AfD nomination of Constant

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.

[edit] Sjörup runestone

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)

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

[edit] Haguna

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)

PS, as a courtesy, I will make it even easier for you to read the references by providing their specific URLs:
Have a nice read.--Berig 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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

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)

[edit] Welcome!

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:

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)

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)

[edit] Third opinion request on Talk:Gothiscandza

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Geat

Tut tut --Ghirla-трёп- 22:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Rydberg formula

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)

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)

[edit] Reverse bias

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

[edit] A journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.

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)

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)

[edit] re: Candia

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)

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


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Nysvenska movement.gif

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)

[edit] Small reminder

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

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)

[edit] wikilink

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)

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)

[edit] Assyrian related articles

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)

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)
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)

[edit] WP:STALK

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)

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

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)

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

[edit] Assyriska/syrianska självständigheten

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Vacuum permittivity and all that

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Dielectric and displacement

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)

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)