User talk:Here4now2

Edit-warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dreams from my father. 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. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Dreams from My Father, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Here4now2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not a throw away account

Decline reason:

You are blocked for the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. Since this does seems to be a second account for you, the block is valid. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Here4now2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is the one and only account I have. I just signed up a day or so ago.

Decline reason:

Even if that is so, your edits are all unconstructive, violating WP:EW, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Sandstein 18:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Here4now2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for using multiple accounts: This is my only account The second admin said my edits are all unconstructive: I have only made two edits...both were to a well known author stating that the book in question had partially utilized a ghostwriter. This is not denegration or namecalling or meant to smear.

Decline reason:

Without any references to support your claim, this appears to be an attempt to enter a hoax into the article; at the very least, it's a continuation of the edit warring that was already taking place before you came in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

If Bill Ayers ghostwrote President Obama's book, that is huge news! I'm surprised I missed reading about it- the big news sources must have been all over it. Maybe it broke while I was on my camping vacation. If you can link to two or three of the newspapers that wrote about this (when this was confirmed to be true, there must have been hundreds of articles), I'll take this request for unblocking a lot more seriously. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the media will get to it after they acknowledge the Acorn scandal, the 2000 Miami Herald /NYT recount, etc. As I am not the only one that tried to be accurate in the account of the book...the concerted effort to smother this is meant to protect Obama from anything negative. This censorship is pathetic.

On a personal level, I encourage you to consider the possibility that the reason this hasn't been widely reported is that it not true. In fact, it is obviously not true. It doesn't even make sense. Bill Ayers has no reason to volunteer to write the autobiography of a law student with no money. It's not just a false theory, it's a dumb theory. At Wikipedia, however, 'truth' is not relevant; only what is verified can be published here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]