User talk:SarahTehCat

Welcome![edit]

Hello, SarahTehCat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isaac Asimov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Isaac Asimov''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|aɪ|z|ɨ|k|_|ˈ|æ|z|ɨ|m|ɒ|v}};<ref>''Pronunciation note'': In the humorous poem "The Prime

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Brightdown. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble universe theory and renaming pages[edit]

There's no need to change the title of the redirect Bubble universe theory (and {{DISPLAYTITLE}} won't do that anyway; see below). All that matters is whether someone might use the term to search for the relevant info. If you think there should be a redirect from the name Bubble universe model, then simply create it anew.

When there is a need to move a page to a new title, you should use the move function (there's an introduction to this at Help:How to move a page). DISPLAYTITLE is just for formatting page titles (eg, italicising). Thanks, VeryCrocker (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know exactly how to do that. Thanks for telling me, though. And yeah that makes sense: redirect pages aren't so much about accuracy as they are about getting the users TO the article that's accurate, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarahTehCat (talk • contribs) 08:41, 12 March 2015‎

Yep, that's right. --VeryCrocker (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for clarifying.

Signing comments[edit]

Hi SarahTehCat,

Just for your information, it's standard practice to sign your comments on talk pages and other discussions by using four tildes (~~~~) or pushing the "sign your posts" button at the bottom of the edit window. I've added a signature for you at User talk:Peter Gulutzan. Happy editing! —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 17:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. I actually did not know that, so I'm glad you told me. Thank you very much! ^_^ SarahTehCat (talk) 05:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry that you got dragged into the argument between me and another editor. Honestly, I've been editing here off and on for eight years, and I only remember a small handful of arguments that have been this unpleasant (maybe even none). I really do enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and often learn a lot from doing so. I hope this won't deter you from contributing as well, as you appear to be! —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 14:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) I understand; it sounds like a very unpleasant discussion has been ongoing; even I was a bit irritated by the other editor's stubbornness, so I can only imagine how frustrating it's been for you. Lol. And nope! I've been editing on and off for a couple years now, but only recently have I been much much more active, so I still consider myself...oh, I don't know, "quasi-new"? Haha. xD Also, technically, I went through several accounts throughout that time, so my account, actually, is quite new. Haha. SarahTehCat (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

great :-)[edit]

Hello good morning :-) Gwen racaza (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, good morning. Or, rather, evening now, 'least according to my region. xP – SarahTehCat (talk) 20:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worldview[edit]

Hi. You added to unit of time that The base unit of time in the International System of Units (SI), and by extension most of the Western world, is the second. I'm all for a global view of things, but surely in this case the second is used by everyone on this blue green planet? most of the Western world implies that a) there are people in the Western World using another time system, and b) that the use of this system not used outside the western world. The number of people using another time system must be insignificant or nonexistent. Or do you have info to the contrary? --Cornellier (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First off, sorry for my late reply. Anyway, thanks for being so courtious as to post on my wall instead of just reverting my edit or whatever! I really appreciate it! :D

In response to your points, yes, there are other base units of time that at least have been used in the past, if not are still in use in some remote areas nowadays, although surely most people on Earth use the SI Second nowadays. Lol. For instance:

• The French Revolutionary Second^[1] was used as the base unit of time by France's First Republic for about 2.5 years from 1793-11-05 to 1795-04-07^[2], and was equal to 0.864 SI Second. (Or should I say the SI Second was equal to 1.157 FrRev Seconds? ;P )

• In fact, for most of history, the base unit of time was the Apparent Solar Day. This was not only the case with the ancient Egyptians^[3] as well as the Jains of ancient India^[4], but also the ancient Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Japanese. And even the day varied by country in terms of when they started or ended, as some countries started the day at sunset, others at sunrise, others at midnight and still others even other times altogether.

In fact, I recently read a fascinating article from Scientific American about this exact topic. Here's a great quote from it:^[5]

Minutes and seconds, however, were not used for everyday timekeeping until many centuries after the Almagest. Clock displays divided the hour into halves, thirds, quarters and sometimes even 12 parts, but never by 60. In fact, the hour was not commonly understood to be the duration of 60 minutes. It was not practical for the general public to consider minutes until the first mechanical clocks that displayed minutes appeared near the end of the 16th century. Even today, many clocks and wristwatches have a resolution of only one minute and do not display seconds.

• Also, Ancient China and Japan didn't even use the Second, but a decimalised system where a day would either start at 23:00 or 00:00 local time and would be divided into 100 ke, each thus being about the duration of 14.4 minutes. And each ke would be divided into some number of fen (it varied from dynasty to dynasty).^[6]

• The Jains of ancient India also didn't use the Second. They divided a day into 15 Muhūrtas, which was further divided into 30 Trutis, 30 Kalās, 30 Lavas, and then finally 12 Nimesas, equal to about 0.018 Second. At one point, the Nimesa was actually the base, thus defining a day as 4 860 000 Nimesas.)^[7]

In any case, this is an encyclopædic entry about units of time, not units of time that are common, although the latter topic most certainly would be appropriate for a small portion of the lede as well as a significant section of the body. So it doesn't matter whether there are 12 people or 12 000 people using an alternative method—if it's known about and sufficiently documented, other Wikipedia policies notwithstanding, then it should be included in this article.

(Fyi, regarding the sources, in all instances where specific pages are cited, unless there is no in-text pagination, just go by the PDF pagination.) – SarahTehCat (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

Reference errors on 19 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Myanmar units of measurement page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, SarahTehCat. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 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]

Formatting[edit]

Hi. Wikipedia has its own formatting. The tags you used on a recently created article are not necessary. Please take a look at this for more info: Formatting guide --Jennica✿ / ^talk 03:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Collection (Frank Sinatra album)[edit]

Hello SarahTehCat,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Collection (Frank Sinatra album) for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia, and the artist doesn't have an article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mark^Dask 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, SarahTehCat. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, SarahTehCat. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of The Collection (Frank Sinatra album)[edit]

The article The Collection (Frank Sinatra album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Appears to fail WP:NALBUM

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://io9.com/5886129/the-short-strange-history-of-decimal-time

[2] ttp://www.iso.org/sites/edumaterials/trbsaunders.pdf (page 29)

[3] ttp://www.rmg.co.uk/sites/default/files/media/pdf/Calendars-from-around-the-world.pdf (page 10)

[4] ttp://www.insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol15_2_3_SSLishk.pdf (page 194)

[5] ttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-time-division-days-hours-minutes/

[6] ttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASJ...56..887S and https://books.google.com/books?id=aLNH6p719q4C&lpg=PA8&ots=rmuUbh1aEQ&dq=%22ancient%20china%22%20AND%20%22unit%20of%20time%22&pg=PA42#v=onepage&q&f=false

[7] ttp://www.insa.nic.in/writereaddata/UpLoadedFiles/IJHS/Vol15_2_3_SSLishk.pdf (page 194,195)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]