User talk:Marlin1975

Hello, Marlin1975, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Aloha! --Ali'i 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you reverted this? It's the Coleman article, and I'm explaining Coleman's position, so I'm not sure of why that edit is not acceptable.... --Enric Naval (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glenn Beck. 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. The article currently includes the information you're trying to add. Also, please read WP:VANDAL and refrain from labeling edits that aren't vandalism as vandalism. Onorem♠Dil 00:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not vandalism. You obviously didn't read the link. --Onorem♠Dil 01:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As described by Onorem, you have violated WP:3RR and have been submitted for block.[1] You have also violated No Personal Attacks and WP:CIVIL. I'll also repeat Onorem, please read WP:VANDAL as you are misusing the term. Morphh ^(talk) 1:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Glenn Beck. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:07, 14 August 2009 (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).

Marlin1975 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was being talked about in this page " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onorem " about how 2 right wing trolls keep editing conserative/republican articles to remove anything negative. Look at the link and also their edits to see this has been going on a long time with many noticing it. I just stood up to their BS, will you? also look at Morph and his edits. Most are him removing any negative comments (even when true and support and meets Wiki rules). That and also look at "Fox News" and how a self proclaimed “conservative”, Arzel, keeps removing valid information that SEVERAL people have put up and it has been discussed already as valid and supported. Also Morph should be banned as well. Read his own page and you see where someone talks to him about removing negative parts of the Beck article and he wants to "expand" on all his "bestselling books". Why that has been allowed I am not sure? --Marlin1975 (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In addition to merely citing WP:NOTTHEM, I would add that this is the first time I've seen another user put his response to an unblock request inside the template. Which, to me, demonstrates that this block is justified. — Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 14 August 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.

I'm not sure that I've ever been called a right wing troll (another WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violation). If you look at the article, you'll see that I haven't edited it much at all (aside from that one dispute) and I certainly haven't been editing conservative/republican articles to remove anything negative as you state. I rarely edit such articles and have been praised by those wanting to add criticism for trying to negotiate a compromise. Your actions were disruptive editing in regard to an ongoing discussion for that content. As far as expanding content Beck's NYT bestselling books, I was describing weight policy. We're giving a lot of coverage to different areas, but only one sentence to this aspect of his career that is important to his notability. You're out of line and need to cool down and read policy, which is the reason I submitted for the block. Your last edit actually put content that I added back into the article - I'm the one that wrote and added it (described as having your fact and more) so not sure how I can I be accused of removing it. It wasn't the content, but the disruption of editing on an issue that is under discussion and your failure to be civil and follow policy. Morphh ^(talk) 13:00, 14 August 2009 (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).

Marlin1975 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why has a user been allowed to enter information in the unblock request Morph? Is that not an auto-ban? It also shows why my undos were done as he will try anything to keep it his biased way. Also I did what the item says above. "{unblock/Your reason here} below" is it not below? that statement.

Decline reason:

No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:49, 14 August 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).

Marlin1975 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My Edits and Undos were is respone to keep articles from being biased and were based off the Talk page and many others agreeing. It was only a couple of users who kept making the articles biased and even break rules and edit unblock request as they are now being looked at.

Decline reason:

This doesn't tell me that you're going to stop edit warring. Please also see WP:NOTTHEM. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:08, 14 August 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.

FYI: I reverted your revert. As I mentioned at Talk:Fox News Channel#Arbitrary break for continued discussion, there does not yet appear to be consensus for that change. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well as articles - as noted in my WP:Edit summary. I've applied for oversight to exicse the first four relevant edits (including mine); I'll now ask them to excise yours and the revert I'm about to make.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marlin1975. 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. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Glenn Beck. Thank you. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, Arzel, and Tdinatale are all engaged in edit warring at Fox News Channel. Please do not continue reverting people's edits when a discussion at the talkpage is ongoing; there is clearly no strong consensus either way yet and making reverts that you know are just going to get undone is pretty pointless. If edit warring continues, the page may be protected or editors may be blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Marlin1975. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are obviously engaaged in a series of incidents on the FOX News Channel page and it looks like you are starting another one with the edit I added regarding the LA Times article. I havee submitted this to the Neutral Point of View Discussion site and we can wait on the consensus, but until you have facts that back up you assertion that the LA Times is shilling for FNC, the fact that the article was published and what it said stands. Continued reversion stands in violation of 3RR. WP:ANEW Rapier1 (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You told me to see the talk. I have seen the talk. I have even participated in the talk. Which part of the talk exactly are you referring to? The lawsuit Beck v. Eiland-Hall refers to the url: GlennBeckRapedAndMurderedAYoungGirlIn1990.com (and neither of the other two). Correct? ~a (user • talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My own point of view? No sir, those are the facts as presented by Major League Baseball. While Atlanta fans didn't appreciate the call (it's later stated that Hrbek got death threats on it), if you read what I wrote again, I stated exactly what happened on the play according to the scoring of the game. That is NPOV, and I'll ask that you restore this yourself. Rapier1 (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when making significant changes (such as reverts), please do not check it as a "minor" change. Doing this removes the edit from any "watch" page that is filtering out the hundreds of truly minor edits out there and makes it difficult to stay current. I'm assuming good faith on your part and assuming that you were unaware of this, rather than doing it deliberately. Thank you. Rapier1 (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SeanNovack(Rapier1) v Marlin1975 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marlin1975. Thank you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for one week for involvement in sockpuppetry. Please note that you are not permitted to avoid scrutiny by logging out to edit (and especially by referring to your IP as a different editor). If you wish to contest this block you may do so by using the {{unblock}} template, but please review our guide to appealing blocks first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for creating another sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247. 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]