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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Additions of http://.siv0.com
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

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 from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 11:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|left]]Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia to advertise you will be blocked from editing. External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the owner of siv0.com. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote siv0.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Wyattmj, consist of adding external links to siv0.com→1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526 and is considered  WP:Spam. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion.  Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted.--Hu12 (talk) 01:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. 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 edit warring. Ronnotel (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The 3RR does not apply to biographies of living persons. Please unblock me.Wyattmj (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, you don't need unblocking, it was a 24 hour block that lapsed on the 13th March.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bishonen &#124; talk 15:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC).

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)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Vsmith (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restarted the block because you edited as an IP to evade the block on your account: Special:Contributions/74.100.71.90. Further block evasion will result in longer blocks. BencherliteTalk 10:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
When you come back, you might want to read some of this. Good luck.

Request for Arbitration case declined
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  05:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

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 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? 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 &#124; talk 12:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC).

May 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely for violating Sock puppetry for the purpose of illicit cooperation on Copernican principle and "other key articles", per this link. This is what the policy says: "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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; 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 Talk:Copernican_principle. I concluded that you appear to be an activist for 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: 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 &#124; talk 21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC).

Proposed deletion of File:Bucklin plaque small.jpg


The file File:Bucklin plaque small.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing 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 page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)