- 1 Origin of AIDS
- 2 Vaccine controversy
- 3 October 2009
- 4 Request for mediation accepted
- 5 Speed of light - "because of this"
- 6 SG
- 7 Continuing mediation
- 8 Your recent edits
- 9 Disambiguation to our user pages?
- 10 Talk:Cloud_computing
- 11 Your reversion
- 12 2012
- 13 Abacus
- 14 C Love
- 15 RE: Quantum nonsense
- 16 Disambiguation link notification for September 5
- 17 Amendments to Robin Hood page
- 18 A page you started (Pleasant Township, Wright County, Iowa) has been reviewed!
- 19 Disambiguation link notification for September 12
- 20 Earl of Huntingdon - Hastings lineage.
- 21 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 22 ArbCom elections are now open!
Request for mediation accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Acceptance by mediator
Acceptance of groundrules
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)
Speed of light - "because of this"
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)
Hi Sebastian, I have suggested we try a different approach in the mediation.  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)
Proposal to close
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)
Your recent edits
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 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?
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)
- 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)
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)
- Whoops...yeah, not sure what happened there. Thanks for making the correction. Sebastian Garth (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
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
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! :)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giordano Bruno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suns. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Amendments to Robin Hood page
Thank you for your contributions to the Robin Hood Wikipedia page, I'm certain that they will prove to be useful. I have been endeavoring to enhance this page, and would be delighted to co-operate with you in order to improve the page for the benefit of all users. Admittedly, the page did need further amendments after my last edit (it was a real mess when I started to alter it), and my last adjustment by no means left the work as a finished article. Alas, other commitments limit the amount of changes that I can make at any given time. In consequence, as stated, I would be glad to work together with someone who has a proven understanding of the subject matter in order to improve its quality.
I myself have an in-depth and advanced knowledge of the origins and development of the legend, having studied the subject to Master of Arts by Research level at a leading UK Russell Group institution of Higher Education. Incidentally, I wonder what your own academic credentials are on this subject matter? I note from your "About Me" page that you are a software engineer and systems analyst who has a myriad of "special interests". I only ask because I note that you have made some rather drastic adjustments to my own contributions to the page, without providing any justification for these actions. The information that I edited was either irrelevant, misleading or incorrectly cited. Otherwise I just re-edited under a different heading.
As I say, by working together I am such that we will be able to produce a very good finished Wikipedia page, and perhaps even save one another a little time in the process.
- My contention with your changes was that they essentially deleted valuable content while introducing a lot of grammatically-stricken and oft-times POV commentary. That said, the biggest problem was the itermingling of edits - If you make incremental changes then it's easier to manage. Anyway, please feel free to carry on with your edits. The article definitely needs the help. Cheers! Sebastian Garth (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
A page you started (Pleasant Township, Wright County, Iowa) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Pleasant Township, Wright County, Iowa, Sebastiangarth!
Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
I added the article to Wikiproject Iowa.
To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Earl of Huntingdon - Hastings lineage.
This communication is an attempt to relay additional information, that will expand on contents of subject. First - notation of dormant/extinct for first creation, was in 1237 at death of John de Huntingdon (childless), is not completely accurate, it passed to a sister Ada (1198-1265) & her husband Henry de Hastings (d. 1250), but was non-heir so then became extinct/dormant unknown date prior to her death. Second - 1539, 7th recreation for George Hastings, being passed to his 5th son Francis (not eldest son), husband of Catherine Pole. - No known reasons, as of yet. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djcanfield1 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)