User talk:Pieter Kuiper

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

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

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

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

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 ${\displaystyle L=0}$, and that would not be right for a semi-classical trajectory. I have a feeling that it is also related to the term ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\ell (\ell +1)}}}$ (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:

${\displaystyle \varepsilon ={\sqrt {1-\left({\dfrac {l+1}{n}}\right)^{2}}}}$.

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

${\displaystyle \varepsilon _{n{\text{s}}}={\dfrac {\sqrt {n^{2}-1}}{n}}}$.

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 ${\displaystyle n=\ell +1}$ 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 ${\displaystyle \ell }$ 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

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]

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:

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

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.

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: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: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

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.

• 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

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]

I had just noticed your message on that discussion page, and I was looking at the diff. I agree, the suggestion that this dates from 1987 is particularly ludicrous. I think will revert the whole thing - it looks like some kind of royalist POV edit. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your revertion. I hope the caracature will be allowed to stay, but it seems as though this can be somewhat of a fight: User:SergeWoodzing have just returned with, I think, exactly the same arguments as sv:User:EmilEikS made in the same discussion on Swedish wp - insisting it is "porn", etc. It seems so uneccessary to have the very same discussion here when all the arguments given by him has already been answered earlier. I do hope the drawing won't be deleted simply because there are less people here to contradict that, but I suppose a third oppinion is always possible. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also expressed my concern regarding somethings about this user here: [[3]], but, being ignorent about how these things are done, I may have placed it in the wrong place. --85.226.44.13 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably too long, and the subject matter is not of great interest to many enwp editors (although of course there is "sex" involved). Your message will make admins have a look at Woodzing's talk page - not a good impression. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help to give you a tip. I saw that SergeWoodzing have written of-topic and temperamental, personall remarks about you on the talk-page of Sophia Magdalena of Denmark. Understandably, you removed them, which I understand perfectly and can't blame you for doing. But if you think about it; wouldn't it be a good idea to leave his attacks on the talk page, for all to see? After all, that sort of talk can't harm you, only him: it is in fact proof that he can't handle a conflict withouth getting personal. Will you consider restoring them? It would help to have as much proof of his conduct as possible out in the open - and no one can blame you for restoring them either ;) Of course you don't have to, but this can make you see the matter in a whole new light, doesn't it?--85.226.45.47 (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, only an arch-reactionary could characterize me as belonging to the extremist left. But people do not know what to think if he is referring to writings in Swedish. I do not wish to respond there, as this would only add another off-topic exchange. Better to delete, according to standard exceptions on

Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Communicating with Your Fellow Editors#Editing or Deleting Existing Comments. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

There was an edit conflict, I was not consciously removing your material in this edit. However, I would not consider it a fact that "the police stated that they believe the women's fears stem from Assange's position of power". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, why do you think this image was PD in the U.S.? Lupo 09:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela Blau sued the BBC right? So this should be international. Anyway, I transferred this to commons, probably better to debate the issue there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did so in Switzerland. What makes you think a photo that was deemed not to be a "work" in Switzerland was not a work in the U.S., where the threshold of originality is much lower? Lupo 11:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She did not sue the BBC in the US. Even though one may assume that Swiss photographers' association would have supported legal action, if it would have been likely to succeed. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Christoph Meili 1997.jpg. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand you better, and would like to ask you two questions please. Were you going to report the message I left at your talk page yourself? Would you rather it was not reported at all? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was no use reporting it, when Matt Buck can call me scum without any consequences whatsoever. But then of course, on Commons, there is a standard for admins, and a different standard for ordinary users. It was a very decent thing of Prosfilaes to bring your insults to the admin board. Problem is, that on Commons admins do not even get desysopped for similar personal attacks. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I did not post my questions properly. I meant, now, knowing what followed would you rather it never was reported at all? BTW did Matt really apologized to you as 99 said he did?--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he has not, see here. But neither have you. You even heaped more attacks on me in User talk:Mbz1#Before you let my block to expire. Mattbuck's dirt cannot be your soap. You deserve to be blocked. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure I cannot care less about your opinion about my block. I am more interested, if you believe you deserved to be blocked? BTW the thing is that so called my insult against you was not an insult at all. I was talking about users, who upload anti-Semitic cartoons to commons and do not even allow to add them to category antisemitic pictures, but you believe the cartoons you upload are anything, but. So here's you have only two choices: Agree that cartoons are antisemitic and consider my statement to be PA against you personally or disagree that those are antisemitic , and do not consider my general statement to be PA against you personally. And, no, I was not looking for any soap. I need none. I said exactly the same thing that I would have said back in 1938 to people, who were spreading Nazi cartoons, and there's no differences between those cartoons and the ones by latuff --Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got distracted while editing the Bohr Magneton wikipedia page, and saved it without noticing that you had changed it in the meantime. As far as I can quickly tell, we made the same changes, except I gave a reference to Romanian usage of "Bohr-Procopiu magneton", but you may want to check in case I missed something. David C Bailey (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Let's hope it satisfies the Romanian editor. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 December 2010

As you noted on the talk page, "Vermillandia" is a form of Värmland found in medieval charters. I'm a bit confused why a disambig based on an exonym is necessary, but I don't think it is clear enough to be confidently deleted as a hoax. An AFD seems more appropriate. bibliomaniac15 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I also wrote on the talk page: none of these people was ever referred to as "Carl of Vermillandia" in any English text. Not before Woodzing started these hoaxes. One of the problems with wikipedia: it is much easier to add misinformation than to clean it out. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove

Rubbish. I had not created that page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, I was inspired by your links to create a page for

IANAL, but I will have a look at it. Häktning has been criticized by international human rights organizations. I will try to find some good references for that too. The periods of solitary häktning can be very long. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super. thanks for the edits.--Nowa (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

In this edit you claim that Dromedaris Books is the same publisher as Maple Lane Publishing - same isbn publisher prefix, but you used that rationale to remove the "self-published" note from the Dromedaris books rather than add the note to the Maple Lane books. Since Dromedaris is quite clearly owned and operated by Warder, and Maple Lane is (by your logic) the same company, aren't all of the books then self-published? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that "Dromedaris Books" is a label of the larger Maple Lane publisher, which is very unlikely to be owned by Warder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you didn't take a look at the Dromedaris website. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. But I looked further. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elucidate? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I told you: these books were published by Maple Lane Publishers. Google that, and you will find it very unlikely that the publisher is owned by Warder. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say that the books are published by Maple Lane Publishers, based on the ISBN. When I Google "Maple Lane Publishers" I find no evidence that they have anything to do with Dromedaris Books, the publisher of record (based on the Google Books search) of the books listed as "self published". In fact, I find little evidence of their existence at all. However, Dromedaris books' website very clearly identifies itself as "Marie Warder's Dromedaris Books". I.e. she set herself up a publishing company to publish her own books. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... you have no basis for your speculations about ownership. The site very clearly is publicity for a series of books by Warder. And if you google a bit, you will find a book at Amazon listing under product details: "Publisher: Dromedaris Books (Maple Lane Publishing)". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose you could be right. Either interpretation (that Warder owns Dromedaris or that is merely a publicity site) are equally likely. I find the whole lack of information about either company a bit dodgy, but your point that it is not sufficient to claim the books are self-published is a well-taken. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

Now archived here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

Oh my, again. Woodzing does this all the time, look at the archives. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one now also archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive706#Stalked forever. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, due to recent events a request for arbitration has been filed by ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs) regarding long standing issues in the "Cult" topic area. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cults The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You named me a party to the hullaballoo. I do not think I am. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To whom are you referring? [5]   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your response (with its inflammatory header) was way out of line, and a rather nasty personal attack. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think so you could have said so directly. I'll change the header, but I don't think my posting was a personal attack.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And maybe this does not count as a personal attack, but it was an attack and it was rather personal. Please remember

WP:BITE. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for standing up for the principles of this project and for kindly looking out for a newbie editor. Your efforts at promoting fairness, neutrality, and a less aggressive approach towards perceived ideological opponents are much appreciated. DracoE 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just returned from a vacation trip, and this was a nice surprise. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 16, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 23:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove me from that? I do not consider myself more involved than anybody else. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I actually suggested to the Committee that all parties be removed from this case, because there is really nothing consistent linking the listed parties together and because the stated aim of the case is to look at broader principles, not individual conduct. We'll see what they say. NW (Talk) 02:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sune Sik, Duchies in Sweden". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

Fascinating. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another one archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive727#Request interaction ban between User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "HIV". Thank you. --DavoDavoDavo (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:HIV Virion-en.png?? You seem to be lost, it does not have anything to do with enwp. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pieter, I thought I should let you know that Serge Woodzing has started another ANI thread about you. The thread is here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, but there seems to be no need to respond there. Woodzing likes his own photos a bit too much. Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now archived and buried at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive735#User:Pieter Kuiper again. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

You have been

talk) 23:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

@RA: Did you receive my wikimail? I did not wish to risk any further accusations of "outing" by requesting unblock here. Anyway, if I broke against policy, so does Woodzing, as he makes a habit of referring to me by my job title. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read it. Thanks.

I'm not going to enter into speculation about any editor's real-world identity. That's the issue. Even if you did not mean any ill by it, this is the internet: the only eyes on a page are not just those who are contributing to a discussion. Furthermore, the record of that discussion will remain forever, including any attempts to identify editors in it. It is essential to everyone's privacy — meaning their real-world jobs, their real-world relationships, their real-world reputation and even their real-world safety — that we never attempt to identify anyone. Even if you believe that it is easy to join up the dots (or that someone has let their real-world identify slip) do not be tempted to do so. The real-world consequences can be too great.

With respect to the source in question, if it is a

self-published source

, no more discussion is needed. It's out. It doesn't matter who did or didn't write it. It's out.

I have

talk) 16:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you. As far as I am concerned, I am not asking for the restrictions on Woodzing's editing that you propose. The only thing that annoys me is that he drags me to administrators' notice boards all the time. Also he should stop using my job title. And I would think that accuracy of the encyclopedia (for example a possible hoax in

Oscar II of Sweden) is more important than an editor's sensitivities and allergies. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

WRT interacting with Woodzing, that's entirely your prerogative.

WRT attempting to identify another editor's real-life identity — and why you should not do so — I think you've missed the point, but please don't do it again.

WRT to a "hoax", there is a difference between a

talk) 21:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It could be a hoax in Throne of a Thousand Years, or village gossip. And I heard you, it is against policy for me to speculate any further. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Pieter Kuiper, per

behavioral policy

).

Although, you have declined a similar interaction ban above. I would strongly urge you to consider privately following a personal (informal) interaction ban of your own towards SergeWoodzing. You need not notify anyone if you choose to do this. However, by choosing not to comment on him/her, not to post to his/her talk page, not to reply to him/her in discussions, and not to undo his/her edits, you may do a great deal to ease his/her belief that you are harassing him/her.

I hope you appreciate the motivation for this post. --

talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Blocked

You have been

talk) 09:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

You have been blocked for one week for this edit summary (and this related talk page comment).

These comments came immediately after you were released from a 48hr block for an attempted

attempted outing, where you associated SergeWoodzing with the person disparaged in those comments. You received a warning subsequent to that block to be careful not to be seen to be harassing SergeWoodzing

. In light of that, these comments were particularly unwise.

Do not think that it is clever to try in any way to

behavioral policies

.

You are welcome to return to making constructive contributions once the block is over. Regards, --

talk) 09:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

What?? Your told me I could argue that the book was not a reliable source: self-published by an non-academic. I reverted with an explanation because Woodzing restored this book as reference. Which I would think was a violation of his editing restrictions anyway. I did not report him, that is not what I am after. I added reliable information from a scholarly source, which greatly improved the article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had neutrally commented on the book as a reliable source or otherwise, there would have been no issue. However, last week you attempted to out SergeWoodzing as the author of the book. This week you are making demeaning remarks ("retired hotel manager Demitz") about the author of the book. That is the "pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons."

I very much appreciate that your additions to the article are constructive. However, your behavior towards SergeWoodzing is not. Regardless of whether SergeWoodzing is Demitz or not, you were advised to be careful in your approach to SergeWoodzing in case your actions be seen as harassment. You don't appear to have taken that on board.

With regard to

talk) 12:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The author of Throne of a Thousand Years is Jacob Truedson Demitz who is retired now and whose profession was hotel manager. That is not demeaning in any way. It is just to make the case that the author of this self-published work is not a retired history professor or anything like that. Why should I not be allowed to make that case? It seems to me that YOU are outing Woodzing by claiming that this is a personal attack. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you had written it like that, there would have been no problem. However, what you wrote appeared to be a dig at SergeWoodzing, who believe to be Demitz (rightly or wrongly).

There is a long history of complaint by

outing

, you made a snipe like that.

Don't try and

talk) 13:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pieter Kuiper (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not harass an editor. As previously instructed by Rannpháirtí anaithnid, I just argued why an

WP:RS, where I used information in the wp article about its author. For more details see above. Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Decline reason:

The blocking admin's rationale is sound, and explained well on this very page. You posted an edit that attempted to identify an editor, and did so by remarking disparagingly on the author's profession. As noted, you could have posted that information without OUTing another editor or appearing to harass them - and instead chose this route. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pieter Kuiper, part of the

fundamental principles

for our community is that we should default from a position of respect for other contributors. As a demonstration of respect for SergeWoodzing's perception of hounding, if you were prepared to take the small step of committing to a matching self enforced interaction ban then this problem would disappear and be an excellent gesture of goodwill that may result in this block removed. Considering your track record for being seen to be persistently on the verge of hounding those in your targets and in this case making edits that were obviously going to upset SergeWoodzing immediately after your previous block was lifted, are you prepared to accept that you are not entirely a blameless victim when it comes to inflaming this dispute?

For reasons of disclosure, it should be noted that I have recently been the focus of Pieter Kuiper's unwelcome attention on Commons (see Commons:User_talk:Fæ) and consequently will not knowingly use any sysop tools to deal with his contributions on Wikipedia, though I remain seriously concerned about this cross-project pattern of problematic behaviour. Fæ (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your revenge off-wiki post maliciously outing two contributors here, within minutes of receiving a decline for your unblock review, will hardly be taken as a step in the right direction. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to raise this issue on

WP:ANI, as I think this is grounds for a permanent ban. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Warning: no personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Richardice of Sweden. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

In this edit, there was no need to personalise the comment. This is particularly the case since there are already concerns about how you behave towards

talk) 21:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

It is part of a pattern of behaviour of SergeWoodzing. Of which there also other editors have expressed concerns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly so. However, that message can be delivered more effectively if, for example, you were to neutrally raise those concerns on a relevant community forum and invite comments from others. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden, possibly?

Keep the focus on content in the first instance. Particularly, when there are concerns about how you behave towards the editor in question. --

talk) 21:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Woodzing could focus on content by arguing his case. Instead he is campaigning to get me blocked. Which should show you how weak his case is. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism

I disagree with the policy someone inserted as a header. In fact, so do many others as can be observed in the entries included in the category. Despite the header on the top of the page, I observed that Wikipedeans included such individuals such as Irène Némirovsky and Wilhelm Marr. They fit with the topic, as does Henry Ford.Iss246 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense. I was not part of the consensus decision. Nor were the individuals who included Irène Némirovsky, Wilhelm Marr, Otto Höfler, Howell Arthur Gwynne, Salvador Abascal, Evelyn Barker, Dezső Szabó, Andrey Dikiy, &c. Wikipeadeans have spoken on this matter. A small group can't come to a consensus and overrule a wide swath of Wikipedeans who in all honesty linked those individuals to the category of antisemitism.Iss246 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say this about writing on your page. I did not know if I needed to echo my response on your page. I don't like to go behind the backs of other Wikipedeans; I know that if I write a response on your page, I would alert you to my thinking on the matter at hand. By writing on your page, you get a message from Wikipedia that I wrote to you. By writing a response to you solely on my page, I don't believe that you get alerted. But by writing on your page you do get alerted. Hence, I continue to write on your page. I want you to know what I think.

Now I turn to the discussion at hand. The discussion regarding deleting individuals was reasonable according to you. But not according to me. Nor according to others who contributed historical people to the category. I don't find deleting the individuals you deleted reasonable. For example, I see no point to deleting Richard Wagner, who advocated building a theater in Vienna, putting on a play popular with Jews in order to draw a large crowd, and then setting the theater on fire. It makes no sense to me and many others that you would delete him from the category of antisemitism. He was a brilliant composer and creator of operas. He was also a vicious anti-Semite. You may as well remove (Father) Charles Coughlin!

My interaction with you occurred at a time when I concluded a good deal of reading about Lindbergh and Ford because one of them, Ford, is relevant to a small section in a chapter in of a book I am writing.

I register my objections, and continue to restore names I believe belong in that section.Iss246 (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter, you must stop. This is getting way beyond the limits of goodfaith. That's

WP:CENSORSHIP.--Galassi (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

No, you must stop. You do not seem to understand what categories are for. They are not for

Stalin in an antisemitism category. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

That's your personal opinion. You obviosly see no difference between Antisemitism and Criticism of Judaism. --Galassi (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Pieter Kuiper. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated DR goes to Wikimania! 01:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply ]

File:Omar Kayyám - Geometric solution to cubic equation.svg

Hi. Thanks for creating this diagram, but it is not quite right. The vertical line is a diameter of the circle. That would not be true in general. All that it needs is to make the circle bigger or smaller and adjust the vertical line accordingly. --agr (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I made this SVG figure based on File:Omar_Kayyám_-_Geometric_solution_to_cubic_equation.png, mainly because the SVG code is short and readable, without knowing too much about the background. I will have a look at it, if I can make it clearer. Or maybe you can do it? Regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima before/after attack: Wrong caption?

Hi Pieter, I hope you're the right one to address this to. I have to link directly to Japanese Wikipedia, since this picture (though historically highly valuable) is NOT used in English Wikipedia at all: ja:ファイル:Post-attack.jpg. Caption is definitely wrong, saying "Hiroshima before A-bomb attack (mosaic view)..." although this is clearly recorded on August 11th, 1945, thus after the devastation took place. Unfortunately, there seems some protection been applied, since there is absolutely no way to edit the caption whatsoever. Yet I thought it should be noted. HAND. -andy 77.191.192.78 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the image is on Commons, so you can edit the description by going to commons:File:Post-attack.jpg. (They blocked me there, so I cannot do anything about it now.) Best regards, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#Arbitrary_break_3

You are invited to join the discussion at Category_talk:Antisemitism_in_the_United_States#Arbitrary_break_3. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Temperature

I edited the lede, please see what you think. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Pieter Kuiper. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]