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:
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 article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Warning
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)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers07:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
When you come back, you might want to read some of this. Good luck.
Hello, Wyattmj! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen (☎)21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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! EarwigBotoperator / talk07:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked indefinitely for violating Wikipedia: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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | talk12:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
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: 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)[reply]
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 | talk21:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
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.
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. 
