User talk:TonyMarvin

 'ATTENTION: Due to the abuse of power by User:SlimVirgin (an administrator who contributes very little to Wikipedia excepting blocking editors with a non far-left perspective) I will not be editing any more. Because of SlimVirgin's misconduct articles like Ward Churchill and probably many more will continue to be the sick joke they have become marked by vicious edit warring and vandalism.'

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 05:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

making progress?
It seems the changes you made on Ward Churchill/Temp are just you going back to your version with added POV? You said "making progress" but you overwrote the minor reorg change I made, why? It created a new section for other statements and moved a plagiarism charge to the proper section. Your version is rather POV I think. zen master   T  01:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For someone who appears to have been contributing for only a couple of days, you certainly have a precocious facility for determining what neutrality is here. That Churchill's classmates don't recall him mentioning his ethnic background proves just one thing: that the don't recall him mentioning his ethnic background, period. -- Viajero 10:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me get this clear: we are allowed to state, for example, that terrorists commit terrorists acts, but we are not allowed to say that states engage in oppression and subjugation? Wow. And you claim I have an agenda? -- Viajero 10:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Is the existence and nature of COINTRELPRO debated? Is there any doubt that the activities directed against AIM, BPPs and others took place? Do serious historians question this? -- Viajero 11:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Was your last message intended to be ironical? You may be serious, but I am having trouble taking you seriously. By your own admission, you know zilch about Indian affairs and zilch about Ward Churchill. Before continuing to edit Ward Churchill, how about doing your homework? Read a couple of Churchill's earlier works, before he became such a loony figure. And take a look at COINTELPRO. -- Viajero 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Play fair! I reverted because you violated the attempt at consensus in a rude, aggressive, and opinionated way. Ironic of you to lecture me on manners under the circumstances. The page was locked to make people discuss controversial changes. It was unlocked with the warning to play fair. You violated this attempt at civil dialog immediately.--Cberlet 03:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Same old content
If you don't make a case for it on the talk page don't be surprised if your same old edits are reverted in the future. For a comparison on the sorts of things generally put in an intro section note how there is no mention of controversy in the intro section of the Tom Delay article. zen master   T  02:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't disagree with Cberlet does that mean you are ok with going back to his "compromise" version? zen master   T  05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you happen to notice that the "compromise" version Cberlet came up with was the version I reverted to plus minor tweaks? i.e. very far from your current version? Your version is hopelessly POV and lacks all context nor good prose. zen master    T  05:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, that's not better. The point of the Delay intro comparison is that there is no mention of controversy, certainly not focusing one a quotation without the full context.  Cberlet's or Kelly Martin's version is still vastly prfered.  You know you shouldn't disrupt wikipedia users to illustrate a point either?  zen master    T  05:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ward Churchill
I've looked and it seems like a pretty normal content dispute. Sort it out on the talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:23, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your claim that your version is a "consensus" version lacks all factual basis. You are requested to respect the process in place and refrain from editing the main page. If you cannot do so, I will be forced to request the article protected again. Kelly Martin 16:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Hi Tony, you've been reported for 3RR violation at Ward Churchill. While the diffs don't show a strict violation, they do show you sailing close to the wind. This is just to let you know that if you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. Try to reach a consensus for your preferred version on the talk page. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've deleted your 3RR-violation report of Viajero as the links you provided link only to the article and not to specify edits. I also looked at the history and Viajero has not violated 3RR. If you want to resubmit your report, please follow the format on the page and supply diffs, plus time and date of each revert. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk)  19:40, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. If you go to WP:AN/3RR and look at what other people have done, you'll get the hang of the format. The key thing is to supply the diffs for the edits you're complaining of. This means supplying the exact link to the edit; for example, the diff for the edit you made to my talk page is here . Instead of doing that, you'd had linked to the article itself, which doesn't help the admins to see the reverts you're complaining of. To get the diff, either go to user contributions for the person you're complaining about, and click on "diff" for the edits you want to link to, or else go to the article's history, highlight the two edits you want to compare, and click on "compare selected versions." If you go to the WP:AN/3RR and study it, you'll soon come to see how it's done. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from Kelly Martin's talkpage)Kelly, I think you're perilously close to breaking the 3RR. You're definitely breaking the spirit, if not the letter. I know it's frustrating to be up against a POV warrior like Tony. Here's what I suggest. We get an agreement on the talk page of what is disputed. We make a list of disputed items. We state that we will consider it a revert to change any one of those items. This is what a revert really should be considered. Not just the same fact three times, but anything in the article. But let's make a list so that we know what's at stake and can point to the list when, inevitably, items on it are reverted. Then you, I and Viajero revert Tony once each in turn. This will take the heat out of it because we are online at different times. Tony will either have to talk or breach the 3RR and be blocked. I am willing to include his viewpoint if he can substantiate it but relentless POV pushing doesn't help this article or this encyclopaedia. Let me know what you think. (copied to Viajero and TonyMarvin's talkpages)Grace Note 23:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3RR
Tony, you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for 3RR violation, edit warring, and suspicion of sockpuppetry at Ward Churchill. If you feel this block is unfair, you're welcome to e-mail me using the "e-mail this user" function on my user page, and I will get straight back to you. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:47, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again Tony, I unblocked your account 12 hours early. I hope you'll continue to make a useful contribution. If you stick to the policies, write in a disinterested tone, and supply references for any contentious edits, then you shouldn't find yourself being reverted so often. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:26, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)