User talk:My9dreamkey

Welcome!

Hello, My9dreamkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Shem^(talk) 04:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

Thanks for your additions to Barack Obama. Before re-adding them, could you review WP:TRIVIA? Obama's biography is a long article, which we usually avoid including trivia in. I hope you stay around to learn the ropes of editing Shem^(talk) 04:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Tvoz/talk 03:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second (and perhaps final) warning - you are now edit warring again, after having been warned, on making the exact same edit to both the Barack Obama and John McCain articles. Multiple editors have reverted you on each of those pages, and it is clear that the link you wish to include does not have consensus. These are very important articles, edited by many people here and widely read. Stability is important, as is maintaining cooperation among editors. Stop now, or you may be blocked from further editing the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You people edit like your Fox News. Yes height does often have an effect on the Presidential election. Yes McCain is 5'6" tall and yes Obama is 7 inches taller, but it is a fact, is it not? Goddamn Nazi's. Did conservapedia take you all over?

If you have an argument to make for the significance of this trivia, then make it on the articles' talk pages, don't just keep adding something that has been repeatedly removed. And seeing as this was removed from both McCain and Obama, I don't see how you can complain that it's somehow Fox-news inspired. And take a look at WP:AGF while you're at it - calling names isn't exactly constructive. Tvoz/talk 07:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Larry Elder. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. --Muchness (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Portman

Hello My9dreamkey. I reverted your addition of Portman to the List of nontheists. Your speculation about her (probably) not believing in any gods, however reasonable, is original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. See WP:NOR. Also, since Notalie Portman is a living person, it is especially important that any information about her be well-supported by reliable sources. Please see WP:BLP. And please don't forget to use edit summaries. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 08:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of nontheists (film, radio, television and theater). 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. --Rrburke^ekrubrR 14:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Clarence Thomas. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Paul (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Paul (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Juan Williams. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drrll (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polargeo 2 (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked back at your contributions and found disruptive violations of WP:BLP, flagrant insulting vandalism, disruptive talk page edits, edit warring and more. It is down to you to prove your worth to this encyclopaedia in an unlock template, and recommend you accept some form of mentoring or serious revisiting of your editing methods before you return to active editing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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).

My9dreamkey (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Stated unsourced facts. BLP vio removed GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 15:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Next time I will source. Furthermore, the user that reccomended the ban was clearly a Republican teabagger and biased. It was personal.[reply]

Decline reason:

While trolling Wikipedia is a common pastime, we do occasionally try to find and remove the most blatant examples. Reblocked with talk page access removed. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2010 (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.