User talk:MarcusMaximus0

January 2012

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I recommended you open an account so we could start discussing things with you, I most definitely didn't mean you should carry on with edit warring and make gross personal attacks other users. Consider yourself extremely lucky to only be blocked for 31 hours; I would have made it closer to a week. When you come back, please discuss your changes cordially on the talk pages without attacking other users, or you will see yourself reblocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know darknessshine has shaken your confidence as a admin by calling you "biased" and so on however I will not tolerate unilateral and disruptive edits by users who freely hurl insults and get away with blanking pages because it hurts there national pride I think you should of been more brave and blocked darknesshines indefinitely when you had the chance his use of abusive words go unabated as well as his disregard for sourced information and I will continue to remove his nonsense pov pushing MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines has not shaken my confidence at all; I still believe I am a neutral administrator. As for "unilateral and disruptive edits by users who freely hurl insults": do you have any sense of WP:IRONY? In any case, nationalist butthurt is not a valid reason for ignoring Wikipedia's policies; Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire. Rather, follow our norms. If you continue to edit war and make personal attacks without regard to this, you will be blocked indefinitely in a heartbeat. And, by the way, I'm ignoring the fact that this clearly appears to be a bad hand sockpuppet account. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are neutral I appreciate your blunt way of administrating and I don't object to this block (since I didn't moan and appeal against the block by producing crap excuses like "I was angry that's why I did it like some users do i.e darknesshines) however on a sense of "irony" no I don't feel any since he instigates virtually every single conflict by either stalking editors or canvassing to get them blocked MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly embrace: Pakistan, America, and the future of the global jihad

Does not say 371,013 were killed, he says 3 million. Please self revert your misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly embrace states 3 million and if you are capable of reading it states that the number could be between 300,000 to 3 million get a grip please MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what page number? Page 10 is currently cited, and no-were on that page does it say 371,013 (which BTW is an impossible number, all figures are rounded to the closest 100,000 or million mark) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] go through that list and see in fact this site alone gives a slurry of information from several reputable sources I await your reply MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reliable source, it also does not explain why you have misrepresented a source, self revert now. Find a reliable source for the low end figure and add it to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

darkness read

The high estimates of how many Bengalis were massacred are almost 10 times the low estimates: WHPSI: 307,013 deaths by pol.viol. in Pakistan, 1971. D.Smith says 500,000 S&S: 500,000 (Civil War, Mar.-Dec. 1971) 1984 World Almanac: up to 1,000,000 civilians were killed. Hartman: 1,000,000 Bengalis B&J: 1,000,000 Bengalis Kuper cites a study by Chaudhuri which counted 1,247,000 dead, and mentions the possibility that it may be as many as 3,000,000. Porter: 1M-2M MEDIAN: 1,500,000 Rummel: 1,500,000. Eckhardt: 1,000,000 civ. + 500,000 mil. = 1,500,000 (Bangladesh) Harff & Gurr: 1,250,000 to 3,000,000 The official estimate in Bangladesh is 3 million dead. [AP 30 Dec. 2000; Agence France Presse 3 Oct. 2000; Rounaq Johan: 3,000,000 (in Century of Genocide: Eyewitness Accounts and Critical Views, Samuel Totten, ed., (1997)) Compton's Encyclopedia, "Genocide": 3,000,000 Encyclopedia Americana (2003), "Bangladesh": 3,000,000 Indo-Pak War, 1971 B&J W. Pakistan: 8,000 India: 2-3,000 S&S India: 8,000 [sic] Pakistan: 3,000 [sic] TOTAL: 11,000 Eckhardt (Indo-Pak War): 11,000 Clodfelter India: 3,241 Pakistan: 7,982 [TOTAL: 11,223] WPA3 India: 3,037 Pakistan: 7,982 TOTAL: 11,019 Hartman: India: 10,633 Pakistan: 17,000 [TOTAL: 27,633]

MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nangparbat

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

MarcusMaximus0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

See discussion below, posting on behalf of user. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=See discussion below, posting on behalf of user. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=See discussion below, posting on behalf of user. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=See discussion below, posting on behalf of user. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Sigh I have been through this many times now A checkuser is done previously and no I dont edit kashmir related articles like he did i.e K2 etc so save me some time and unblock me MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in fact he exclusively edited mountains in disputed Kashmir take a look at this [2] and his ip range was 86 to 81 mine is 109 to 35 to 86 elockid unblock me please and I wont take your rubbish allegations further MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also noticed when you place tags on his blocked accounts he never responded probably accepting his block in that account and swiftly making another he has never defended himself how can I even be associated with his edit history ? MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use the {{unblock}} template. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have posted your request on the blocking admins talk page [3] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look this is my ip MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC) my IP range is 109, 31 (sorry not 35 got confused) and the one which got me into this crap 86 109.150.59.99 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC) Ok @ dark 109.150.59.99 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to use that template so thanks darkness MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the IP 86.135.17.215 was you? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link me the contributions page MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry wrong IP, I meant 31.52.189.228 And 86.184.209.127 Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was me and I only denied it because in all honesty you got me pretty pissed and I made this account on maggogs advice MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a further comment that ip you gave shows his edits are totally different to mine all he did was add "occupied" to every single kashmir related article and Sylvester Stallone? MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]