User talk:MrHack

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been deleted, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | interiot's tool | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

September 2007

 * 1) Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  --Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your advice, but you should really inform the others of this, for they are the ones who have hawked these articles for many years, I have only just arrived. further, if you looked into my edits, you would notice that I corrected info that generalizes and simplifies evidence, and applies it to persons that have nothing to do with the study (several nations), which is why I added the tag. MrHack 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice piece of cinema Mariam83, but you really should vary your writing style. (collounsbury 00:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC))


 * He would do well to look into the Cabal that is collounsbury, DrMaik, and to a lesser extent Zerida, FayssalF, Lonewolf and Ezeu. Users that work in cooperation with one another in order to perpetuate their monopoly on articles pertaining to the region. Users have a history of protecting editors who share their point of view, and all engage in tactics intended to ostracize editors that object to their distortion and contrary-to-fact impositions with the use of "statistical" mapping and so-called consensus. If these editors were not banned, your cabal's "consensus" would have been overriden long ago. Further, collounsbury, in an attempt to delegitimize my edits, is accusing me of editing articles that I have not even searched for. Juvenile tactics, which will only lead to juvenile article content. But of course you already know this and exploit it in order to control your make-believe. What a laugh. No wonder this experiment is not taken seriously by anyone. Since you have made wikipedia your life's sole occupation, you would do well to look into the content and sources. Further, your insistence on the inclusion of countries that are historically not recognized as Maghrebian or North African countries is objectionable. Why don't you edit articles pertaining to the British Isles and add Spain as a member? What? The EU proves it. And how can you possibly not see the problem with a phrase such as "In Libya, identifying as Berber is considered taboo." Is that so? Is this not an egrigious, juvenile stereotype that derives from God knows where? If anything, the Berbers from the region are exceedingly proud of their identity, going so far as to deny their Arab heritage. And again, would one apply a study based on population samples from Yugoslavia and Poland to England and Ireland? How does the European landscape differ from the North African landscape? If anything, North Africa is much larger.


 * Like I said, vary your style. (collounsbury 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC))