User talk:Sebastiangarth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Origin of AIDS[edit]

Hi -- Wikipedia has a basic rule that no editor may ever (except in cases of combatting vandalism) revert an article more than three times within a 24 hour period, see WP:3RR. You have already violated this rule. I am now notifying you that any further reversions will very likely cause your account to be blocked from editing for some time.

Beyond that, if I can give you some advice, because of the way Wikipedia works, you are not going to succeed in getting your version into the article unless you can convince others to support it. When one editor struggles against multiple editors, the one editor always loses. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 06:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for the advice. I will see if I can rally some support, then.

Vaccine controversy[edit]

With respect to the recent changes in Vaccine controversy, I'd like to remind you again about the three-revert rule (WP:3RR). Please discuss the changes rather than continuing to reinsert them without consensus. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Eubulides (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009[edit]

Information.png Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Speed of light has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Tiderolls 07:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that all of the things you broke were special characters and you did do what you say in the edit summary ("obtain reliable estimate" -> "obtain a reliable estimate"), I think there's something wrong with your browser. ___A. di M. 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the problem seems to be that I had transferred the text between a text editor and my browser, and the editor simply didn't convert the special characters correctly. Anyway, the page seems to be back in order, so all is well. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Request for mediation accepted[edit]

Exquisite-folder5.png A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy.
For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 01:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Acceptance by mediator[edit]

Hi Sebastian. I am willing to mediate this case. If you are ready to proceed, let's begin on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Acceptance of groundrules[edit]

As part of the process, the mediator asked us to add a line under Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Vaccine controversy #Acceptance of groundrules. I assume that you didn't see that; this is just a reminder. Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I overlooked that. Thanks, Eubulides. Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light - "because of this"[edit]

Hi. Not sure why you reverted the whole edit instead of just deleting "because of this". It would help if you explained. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm quite willing to have my version without "because of this", unless I can find a reliable source that properly supports using that phrase. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there were a few problems introduced by the edit. First of all, it suggests that the reason that the metre was redefined in terms of c was because of the greater degree of precision in measurement, which infers a motive I haven't seen yet from reliable resources, hence WP:OR. It is also implied that the dimensional quality of the measurement is simply one of length, but in fact it is one of length and time (I realize that this should be obvious to most, but nonetheless it's best to be clear on these matters). Finally, stating that the metre was simply redefined in terms of c doesn't precisely communicate the quantative relationship (eg: that it is the distance covered by light in vaccuum in 1/299792458 of a second). That said, if you really aren't happy with the current wording, feel free to try out different things - WP:BRD is always welcome. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And cheers to you. Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

SG[edit]

Hi there Sebastian! Out of curiosity, are you "SG"? If you don't know what I'm talking about, then the answer is surely no. Regards, decltype (talk) 01:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry. Old friend of yours, I'm assuming? Sebastian Garth (talk)

In a way, yes. Thanks anyway :) decltype (talk) 06:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Continuing mediation[edit]

Hi Sebastian, I have suggested we try a different approach in the mediation. [1] If you are going to be around, would you be able to comment on the mediation case talk page? Sunray (talk) 07:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'm sorry I haven't commented lately. I've been busy and wasn't really sure how to proceed, anyway. Thanks for the nudge. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to close[edit]

I'm not sure whether you saw my note on the mediation talk page, but I am proposing to close the mediation. However, there are some conditions under which we could continue. Any comments? Sunray (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate all of your efforts to keep the mediation on track, but it does seem to me that continuing with the process most likely won't yield much more progress. For now, I will focus my efforts on making a case on the article's talk page. Once again, thanks so much for your hard work, professionalism, and overall excellence as a mediator. Sebastian Garth (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Would you be able to make a brief statement about your views on further mediation on the mediation case talk page here? Then, we can finalize things. Sunray (talk) 18:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation to our user pages?[edit]

A long time ago, I registered the user name Sebastian, but I'm not using it much anymore because of Unified login. Now it just occurred to me that both the user page and the talk page could be disambiguation pages to the pages of all active users whose name is "Sebastian". If you like the idea, please reply on my talk page. — Sebastian 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cloud_computing[edit]

In view of your repeated rv of my edits, I initiated a discussion at the talk page of Cloud computing here. I hereby inform you in case you miss it. ---North wiki (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have a look then. Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Your reversion[edit]

Hello, please explain your reversions. I can see no meaning in "Original research" relating to my changes.--Brainsteinko (talk) 07:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've reinstated some of the original wording, merging it into more appropriate sections. Let me know what you think. Sebastian Garth (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's very important that the Church is the originator of tormented death of an innocent scientist whilst it perfectly knew what will result in calling somebody heretic that time and asking for capital punishment seems very hypocrite. I regret that you don't see the Church guilty of an atrocious murder of which it didn't apologize if you don't like the word "repent"--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not the role of Wikipedians to point fingers and make accusations; We just state the facts and let the reader draw their own opinions (see Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy).
Sebastian Garth (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point, however it IS a fact what I stated. Anyway, I think we can finish this, the dying CHurch doesn't require help in this process.--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

2012[edit]

Regarding your unconstructive comments deletion. Arguelles stated in his books and elsewhere that in 2012, the Earth passes "out" of the galactic beam. The statement on Wikipedia is totally wrong, misleading and rather stupid. If that what Wikipedia is about, then please excuse my suggestions and enjoy your misplaced self-righteousness. Jimini 18:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment wasn't deleted because of the suggestion itself, but for the tone and manner that it was framed in. This isn't a message board nor a blog for posting obnoxious comments - if you wish to make a point then please do with a little more consideration. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Abacus[edit]

I don't think you really meant to do this. Perhaps you meant to do this instead. SpinningSpark 12:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops...yeah, not sure what happened there. Thanks for making the correction. Sebastian Garth (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

C Love[edit]

Hi, can you please stop adding this disputed content to this BLP until there is a degree of consensus support. There is a thread opened for discussion at the Wikipedia:BLPN#Courtney_Love - dude, your also edit warring at that C Love article so please take this as a WP:3RR warning note - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

  • You have re-instated that information at least six times in the last couple of days. Please consider this a final warning for edit-warring (WP:EW); the next time, you may be blocked. Please don't let it get that far. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is precisely what I was seeking. Instead I got nothing but bull-headed responses, so I simply chose to revert their reversions. I've never been banned before on Wikipedia (or any site for that matter), but I am willing to risk it so as long as this idiocy prevails. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Quantum nonsense[edit]

Hi. I am not a Wikipedia member and am not familiar with the system, please forgive that. I don't have a watchlist so if you choose to respond you can email me at blucat [AT] optusnet.com.au

You were part of an argument about Quantum Physics and you said the modern interpretation was being used to validate all sorts of nonsense, and the Schrodinger's Cat idea was misunderstood by almost everyone.

This seems like what is happening in the movie, "What the bleep do we know?" They use the uncertainty principle at a 'macro' level and give an illustration of how a person can be in many places at once, and that person only appears in a specific place when he/she is observed. And a car can 'quantum tunnel' through a wall etc.

I agree with you, this is nonsense. Quantum mechanics does not apply at macro scales, just like relativity does not apply at atomic scales. Terrence Mckenna (sp?) said that Quantum Phycicists are more and more sounding like Occultists. I read a book called "Chaos", by James Gleik, where he said that nowdays while studying mathamatics you will have to make a choice - to study 'Pure Mathamatics', which does not have to relate to the real world in any way, or let the Physicists teach you 'real maths'.

Some of the physicists interviewed in that movie said in interviews later that their long interviews were cut down to make it sound like they agreed with the idea, when they did not. I think a couple of them might have sued the producers? I'm going to that page next to have a look.

In any case, the phrase used in the movie, "How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?", seems like a giveaway. I prefer to stay on the surface as much as possible, and totally agree with you. And I'm not the only one .. :) Good post. Of course, if they are right, then no doubt they will time travel to the future, put a couple of quantum computers in their backpack, time travel back, give one to you and I, and send us a message from the future showing us the equation used to do it!!!! (For f###'s sake! :)

Cheers,

David Ritter blucat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.12.123.191 (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)