User talk:Wyattmj
Image tagging for Image:Bucklin plaque small.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Bucklin plaque small.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
- Wikipedia:Image use policy
- Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Additions of http://.siv0.com
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.
] This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be
Blocked
While I appreciate that you have made a good faith effort to provide a rationale for the link, that does not excuse the fact that you are engaging in
]Robert Sungenis
Hi, sorry but I've declined the speedy on Robert Sungenis as the article is negative but not unsourced. It does however concern me and if it can't be cleaned up you might want to take it to AFD. ϢereSpielChequers 07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked
Edit warring at Copernican principle
It looks like you are edit warring there with your series of reverts on April 10. To avoid being blocked, I recommend that you promise to take a break of at least 7 days from this article, and also from anything to do with cosmology. You have a previous edit warring block of 36 hours from March 23. If an admin decides that your behavior calls for a new block, it will most likely be longer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. These guys (materialscientist, Drbogdan, and Lithopsian especially) keep reverting my edits; though well thought out and documented. They keep telling me to go to talk, and weeks go by, and no one discusses this. I will take this further. These guys are basically trying to sweep the truth under the rug and use Wikipedia to lie to the public. Let them ban me. They are liars at best, and probably much worse, and are making a fool of Wikipedia. Every cosmologist knows that what I am saying is true, but the establishment cosmologist who want to protect billions in funding wants to whitewash the truth. Is this what Wikipedia is about? Call any cosmologist you know, and ask if the CMB anisotropies and correlation to the ecliptic are an issue for LCDM, big bang, or inflation, and if they have an ounce of integrity they will tell you yes. Read the references I supplied. I plan on publicizing this widely, and Wikipedia is going to have egg on its face. The truth is breaking out, but apparently not on Wikipedia- the last ditch defense for the establishment. Wyattmj (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I have restarted the block because you edited as an IP to evade the block on your account:
April 2013
When you come back, you might want to read some of this. Good luck.
|
7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.
For the Arbitration Committee, —
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Copernican principle". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 07:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Improper off-wiki collaboration?
Could you comment on Talk:Copernican_principle#The_campaign_behind_it_all.3F? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- Now you can't, see below. But you are free to comment here on this page. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC).
May 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely for violating
"Do not recruit your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate." I might add, especially don't recruit sympathisers surreptitiously, and don't advise them about how best to violate Wikipedia's rules. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk 12:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC).I see no evidence of sock puppetry in that link. This looks like a witch hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.46.228.155 (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have added my 2 cents at Geocentrism and that you might be editing Wikipedia for a financial or religious reason. We are supposed to edit it for improving the article, which is covered in a link or 2 above, but consider this one: Wikipedia:Article development. In any case I hunted down a bit of information about you which shows that you are deeply involved in the subjects you like to edit. I definitely wasn't looking for a witch. You might remember me, I was the one who recommended everyone cut it out and improve the article. And then it was revealed that this was not your objective. At least you didn't get burned at the stake like a witch, nor imprisoned for life like Galileo, nor banished like Napoleon. Oh wait, scratch that last analogy. I like to saw logs! (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)]
- P.S. The link I gave above showed Wyattmj's illicit recruitment of sympathisers for the purpose of pushing a fringe POV into Copernican principle. That forum page disappeared a few days later, compare my query here. So webmasters can request Google to remove archived pages... yes, not really surprising that the page went 404, then. Fortunately I've got a screenshot of it, which I'll be happy to e-mail anybody who has concerns about my block reason. Well, anybody respectable; I don't give my e-mail address out indiscriminately. Bishonen | talk 21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC).
The file File:Bucklin plaque small.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the