User talk:Marx0728

So this is Wikipedia. Well, think of me more like a Groucho than a Karl. Marx0728 (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Marx0728! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct of certain editors

I have removed your comment, as it is inappropriate to discuss editor conduct in the article talk space. Here is your comment, and I have replied to it:

Workerbee deserved to be blocked, though perhaps not for three weeks. I think 48 hours would have been more than enough. There are others here who also deserve to be blocked for their misconduct. Obviously Workerbee was making a good faith attempt to edit in a constructive manner. One phrase in the proposed edit was a little ambiguous. That's all. For that, he was relentlessly, viciously badgered and attacked by several editors, and he reacted in a very predictable way. The editors who kept harassing him deserve to be blocked as well. I'll be filing a report at WP:ANI. Marx0728 (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you must understand that WB74 subjected Wikipedia to months and months of disruptive and tendentious editing with the single-minded goal of assassinating the character of Barack Obama - sometimes on his own, and sometimes with the help of other tendentious editors who have themselves been blocked for similar behavior. During that time, he made abusive remarks about numerous editors he disagreed with, usually after "losing" edit wars. He was blocked on several occasions for his bad behavior, with each block escalating in severity. Since you have only been editing in this "theater" for a short while (according to your contribs), you will doubtless be unaware of WB74's record. Needless to say, the patience of regular editors had worn thin, so it might appear from your perspective that WB74 was getting the short end of the stick. Let me assure you that this was not so. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring comments at the ACORN article

You yourself have agreed that WorkerBee74 is a tendentious, single-purpose account. It is not a personal attack to describe such an account that way, especially when administrators have blocked said account for said behavior multiple times. Such comments do not need to be refactored. Do not template-warn me on this issue again. --Good Damon 00:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]