User talk:Yheyma

Welcome!

Hello, Yheyma, 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:

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 here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! - 2/0 (cont.) 17:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Dichotomous cosmology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dichotomous cosmology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dichotomous cosmology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. jps (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest?

Your user name, combined with the fact that you have been promoting the work of Yuri Heymann, leads me to ask whether you are aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy? If you are Heymann, or are connected with him in any way that might lead to a conflict of interest, you are strongly advised, per the COI guideline, not to edit articles concerning him directly - we take a dim view of people using Wikipedia as a means of self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard cosmology

Your recent editing history at Non-standard cosmology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Yheyma reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dichotomous cosmology, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Do not edit within the comments of other editors. Separating the signature from the comment is not appropriate. If you wish to address an editor you can ping them. MrBill3 (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Non-standard cosmology

You're being warned as a result of this edit warring complaint (permalink). If you revert again at Non-standard cosmology you may be blocked. Since this appears to be a dispute about a fringe theory, I'm also leaving you below a notice of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Fringe theories of physics are covered by the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPS

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Your edits at Non-standard cosmology that seem to be intended to draw attention to Dichotomous cosmology fall under this rule. WP:FRINGE provides: "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea". Let me know if you have any questions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]