User talk:173.169.90.98

[1] quite speficially uses no names. Such "blind items" are not valid on WP as reliable sources. Please remove it. It is no more valid that Hedda Hopper would be when she used initials. Thank you. Collect (talk) 14:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the out-of-context quote with a fuller quote which should adequately show the tenor of the Kemp book. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gibbons is absolutely irrelevant to Kemp- and you do not furnish a cite for Kemp's theories not being in his work. Please go back to what the cite actually says. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Arthur Kemp. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You have been reverting every editor's edits. Abce2|AccessDenied 15:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Arthur Kemp. Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Arthur Kemp. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Arthur Kemp. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. 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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tan | 39 15:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Simon Sheppard (far-right activist)

Thanks for your update on the talk page. Do you have a source for this so we can put it in the main article?FrFintonStack (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

May 2010

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but I highly recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (173.169.90.98) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  22:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• PS. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Tired light. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Please provide the edit summary before saving your edits. Thank you very much!

Stop

Stop using Talk:Big Bang as your personal soapbox to rant from. It is not about to discuss whether or not you, yourself, think the subject is true or not, it is to discuss how to improve the article. Furthermore, do not kid yourself into thinking you can convert other editors over to your point of view by falsely accusing us of being religious fanatics, or implying that the scientific majority are fools and liars.--Mr Fink (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the only mention of Harvard at the page you linked is in the affiliation of Schild, as I said before: the journal is not published by or affiliated with Harvard. That's the last I have to say on the topic. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing threads where you demand that we rewrite the Big Bang article to say that the Big Bang theory is a politically motivated fairytale, as well as accuse us of being politically motivated fools, liars and religious fanatics simply because we do not bend over backwards in enthusiasm is not censorship. Allowing you to use the talkpage as your personal soapbox, instead of a place to discuss improving the article, itself, is not at all productive, and as such, I will enforce the warning in the boilerplate more often.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Non-standard cosmologies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Non-standard cosmology. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Non-standard cosmology, you may be blocked from editing. Aldebaran66 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Non-standard cosmology. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Tired light appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. See WP:UW ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Tired light. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. The original research of Dean Mamas does not belong in Wikipedia until it receives third-party recognition. See WP:OR and WP:PSTS. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.