User talk:Bobathon71

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted (if it hasn't already).

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! [ジャム] [ t -  c  ] 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Problems with upload of File:GrahamCube.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:GrahamCube.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 Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the cube's coloring
A reader just noticed that the coloring of this cube actually contains two subgraphs of the relevant kind. Would you consider modifying the image by changing one appropriate red edge to blue, in such a way that the original description is correct? — r.e.s. (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks r.e.s. for pointing that out, I hadn't noticed that one. Took me a while to see it even after I got your message... I've modified as you suggested. Let me know if there's any problem. Bobathon (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, with the particular red edge that you chose to change, it's now no longer true that "this cube would contain no such subgraph if any one of the red edges in this subgraph were replaced by a blue edge". I.e., the subgraph now has an edge that's a red face-diagonal which, when changed to blue, produces an all-blue subgraph of the relevant kind. I think there's a red diagonal on the "rightmost" vertical face of the cube that would work, though. — r.e.s. (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Haha! I was trying to fix it without thinking too much... I thought there'd be something. Well, the text now fits with the image, so I think it's fine like that. Thanks for your help. Bobathon (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2010 (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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could 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) 23:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Neptune
See: Talk:Neptune/Archive_3 -- Kheider (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah - thanks, Kheider. Bobathon71 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Flower of life
This is about the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flower_of_Life&oldid=473221033

stop undoing my edits. there IS a physicists approach which comes to the same result. the structure of the flower of life might have more or different origins than those esoterical and geometrical origins that are mentioned on the page up to now. open you mind. it is only a matter of time anyways. why do you delay it?

watch that vimeo video, jump to 1 hours 27 minutes 17 seconds.

and afterwards, please say sorry to me. and clean up the mess.

And do not insult me. I am not selling videos, if I wanted to, I would include my amazon-affiliate tag.


 * Hello. I have never insulted you, or suggested that you were selling videos. I suggested that you provide a physics reference for your physics claim, rather than a link to a cult figure who sells videos of himself but is neither a physicist nor a reliable source of anything scientific. Please refer to pseudoscience, questionable sources and speculation to see why Wikipedia is not a suitable place for claims like these.


 * If you can provide a notable and reliable physics citation, of course your contribution would be very welcome. Bobathon71 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * watch that vimeo video please, jump to 1 hours 27 minutes 17 seconds. http://vimeo.com/30784674 . You are a blockade, this costs unnecessary energy. You are stopping knowledge to be shared and connected. Watch that video, and THEN still believe that you will be right in the eyes of eternity. I give up now - it's your job now to make sure, this connection of previously unconnected fields will find it's place in wikipedia. Thank you, and goodbye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.53.8 (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen plenty of that video, thank you. I appreciate that this material perhaps has some strong personal meaning for you, and that you perhaps believe it to be physics. But you are (clearly) not a physicist; the video is not presented by any kind of physicist nor is it produced or published by any kind of scientific body, and you have provided no citations connecting that material to anything recognised as physics by a reliable scientific publication or source. I directed you to Wikipedia's policies in my previous comment, they are very clear. The fact that you believe something is true doesn't give you the right to present it as a fact in an encyclopaedia without supplying a single piece of supporting material. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for your faith. I don't really believe that you need to have this explained to you? If you're genuinely interested in any kind of scientific assessment of the material you're directing me to, I'll happily provide it, but please be aware that it would probably not be what you'd want to hear. Best wishes, Bobathon71 (talk) 15:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at WP:FTN
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I moved your comment about Nassim Haramein from the talk page to the main page. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 12:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. – Bobathon71 (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)