User talk:Marc KJH/archive 1

Please calm down

What is the problem? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can. This user said he traced the IP of User:Olahus in an attempt to lower and blackmail the user not to edit Turkey article. Then, he started to edit war the article Tukey, after harassing me and Olahus, he rv me even if I added latest information about the wage. Marc KJH (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be a sockpuppet account. Why have you done that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not. You can check me. I'm an old user here, since I used only IPs. But you can ask CheckUser to check me. Marc KJH (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No you very clearly are. It's pretty easy to fool checkuser but your behaviour is not that of a newbie.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You asked me if I'm a sock. I told you I'm not. I haven't said I'm a newbie. Marc KJH (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Playing with words will get you nowhere with me. So far you are skating on thin ice. I'm trying to calm the situation down so please stop playing games. Use your old account.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Turkey appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The preceding warning is curious. According to the article history, this user has not made any edits to Turkey.  --Lambiam 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the Turkey talk page has the issue that prompted a warning handed to Marc KJH as well as a second editor. It is related to the exchange with Theresa above. Hiberniantears (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

If you're innocent, my apologies, and you don't have to worry about it.

There's no reason to remove my edit, leave it on for a few days and it'll deal itself out. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you just removed it from Olahus' page. It has nothing to do with you. I'm looking into this, like I said, if you're innocent you're innocent. Give it a few days and it will be dealt with.--Buffer v2 (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't like trolls and vandals like you. You may ask for CheckUser and file a report. Anyway, neither me, Olahus or others don't use socks. Perhaps you do. --Marc KJH (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will do that. I suspect your accounts are sockpuppets, and if they're not, they apply under the meatpuppets category, which are both against the rules. Good luck. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

You're free to check. After that I hope you'll stop vandalising and being troll. Marc KJH (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how a situation like this came up before @ "Please Calm Down" on this talk page. I will check it. Either way, you're meatpuppets - a clear violation of the rules. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not Neron. You're free to check yourself as well. I'll be filling out a report today, I encourage you to do the same! --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)--Buffer v2 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I already told you that I encourage you to fill out a report. Stop the guessing game - it's going nowhere. --Buffer v2 (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What does careuc have anything to do with the university of calgary? I already suggested that you file a report - your accusations are meaningless without it. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I go to the UofC, and no, that was not my edit - I do have friends just so you know ;). EITHER WAY, I DO recommend that if its a concern to you, that you do do a checkuser - Im doing one myself, and instead of wasting your time making accusations on my talk page, which is meaningless in the long run, you could be making a case for your accusations that'll actually have some impact on what happens. You won't discourage me from checking your accounts though - if you're trying to scare me away from filing reports on yours. --Buffer v2 (talk) 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody buys this lie. It's you, you and you. Marc KJH (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Lying about my friends, degree, everything?... I'm not going to even justify that with a reply. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"What political science program?" The one at UofC? How do I prove that.. Theres IP lookups on the net, you can put in that IP, and it'll show you the location of the IP - the University of Calgary campus. Please don't fill my case page with nonsense. Let it be handled by a neutral source. You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole. --Buffer v2 (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Largest cities in Central Europe

I have nominated Largest cities in Central Europe, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Largest cities in Central Europe. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 10:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Evidences needed

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC), checkuser clerk.

User block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Central Europe. 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.

Stifle (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, you will be blocked from editing. Jeepday (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your only warning.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at User talk:Cordless Larry, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. TheProf | Talk 18:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

The recent edit you made to User talk:Cordless Larry constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 18:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was accused of being racist altough not a single edit of mine was racist. I was blocked unfair and I ask administrators to look deeply in this. I admit it was a conflict of dispute regarding an article but by no means it was very unfair to be blocked.

Decline reason:

Reasoning provided below to keep line of discussion smooth. — Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Racism and vandalism, no response from admins. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your block log states that you were blocked for harassment, and the ANI discussion linked above shows evidence of other disruptive edits outside of the content dispute you were involved in. As you have not addressed these points, I have declined your request for unblock. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

puppetry

No Marc, I am not Montessquieu. Thanks for asking. If you have a look at my user page you can quite easily find out who I am. You can also request a confirmation by a checkuser. However, the sad truth is that apparently both Montessquieu and I are trying to keep to the NPV rule... Honestly, I have nothing against Romania in CE and I will be glad to see all the sources classifying it so. Until it happens, though, do not ignore the sources that don't place Romania in this region. Pundit|utter 16:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Median Europe

A tag has been placed on Median Europe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Pundit|utter 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Central Europe

Hello! I'm sorry to undo your modifications but as long as there's no consensus, the content of the article should remain unchanged. I know the map of Europe quite well but I would never say that Central Europe is a geographical entity. If you know any sources explaining why Romania is Central European I would be grateful if you could share them - Central Europe will probably become a topic of my PhD research and any such article/book/working paper is inestimable. But, for the time being, I regard Romania as partly Central European (and partly South-Eastern). Montessquieu (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Marc, you seem to have trouble understanding OR rule. It doesn't matter what we, as editors, think. What matters, though, is what the reliable sources say. If you have such for Median Europe, or for Europe is from Mars, for that matter, you can write an article. If you don't, you cannot, even if you believe whole-heartedly that some topic is right, 100% correct, true, etc. Whenever there is a controversy in sources, this controversy has to be adequately reflected in the article. Pundit|utter 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1) The map stated countries of Western CULTURE not of Western Europe. Yes, Baltic states belong to the Western European cultural circle (Central European Lithuania, Latvia with strong German culture /German Balts live mainly there/ and Estonia being a Finnish nation). More about Western culture: an ARTICLE by Kevin MacDonald (Professor of Psychology at California State University–Long Beach). The article is about western culture at all (of course, Romania and Greece belong to the western civilisation), but the first criterion divides European culture on western and eastern (Roman and Byzantine influences) what has its results in terms of religion, government, arts... Greece is a heart of Byzantine culture, Romania chose to adapt western model in 19th century (just to give you an example: what kind of alphabet was in use before?).

2) About NATO defining Romania as Central European: you could see that it's not really true in the same report. [HERE] you can find NATO report explaining everything, see page 12.

3) The definition of Central Europe is quite strict. One of the most important criteria is Western European culture. As far as I'm concerned, Romania cannot be called Central European because of e.g. Byzantine influences in southern part of the country (a very large part). Culture of Romania is extremely interesting, it's a mix of Roman and Byzantine influences and meeting point of three regions. Latin language, orthodox religion (and its cultural effects), etc. I don't think that any of them is predominant. I also hope that Romania will not lose its originality.

Montessquieu (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Report

I thought it fair to let you know that I have reported your attacks on me here. [1]. JdeJ (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Undid your edit at RFC/User page

I undid this [2] edit of yours at the RFC/User page. I think you may have been trying to link to an RFC concerning JdeJ, but instead had changed the listing of shortcuts that will lead you to the RFC/U page. qitaana (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)