This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
DYK for Rape in Pakistan
On 23 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rape in Pakistan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to lawyer Asma Jahangir, up to seventy-two percent of women in police custody in Pakistan are physically or sexually abused? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
For your DYK! I guess its our first. I am sure there are more to come. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 09:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I do have another DYK in the works :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Do you ever discuss your own massive changes you do to Pakistan, Islam or Muslim-related pages?
Do you ever discuss or seek consensus about your own massive changes you do to Pakistan, Islam or Muslim-related pages? The sole purpose of you being on the Wikipedia (under the light of your own Wikipedia "edits") IS to bully around (through using various Wikipedia venues and/or twisting, misinterpreting or even cherry-picking the Wikipedia guidelines.) others (specially those who don't agree with your cherry-picking from with-in the academic sources and propaganda) and create anti-Pakistan, anti-ISI, anti-Muslim and anti-Islam pages. You spend hours upon hours inserting your venom of bias, prejudice and hate into Pakistan, Muslim or Islam-related Wikipedia pages. Indeed, your history of "editing" is littered with bias, prejudice, hatred and hate towards the Pakistanis, Muslims and Islam. I hope I haven't put my foot on your Indian/British/Irish tail. If I have then please feel welcome to call all of your Wikipedia Admins and Check user buddies shouting "
"Personal Attack" which you do it too oftenly and quite proudly to others and still get away with it quite cleverly thanks to your Wikipedia Admin and Check user buddies. Thank you. 99.3.86.25 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Mckhan, do not post here again. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
About the AL Qaeda article
please show me where it states there are strong ties. please paste the sentence here.
You have made the same mistake I did, Lt. Gen. Panag, who is in charge of the operational command in Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir regions, said, "We also have no records in the past about Al Qaeda operatives found during counter-insurgency operations in the State. He also ruled out Al Qaeda's relations with Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)." Which was my mistake, and no doubt yours, he goes on to say "We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan," he maintained. "In Pakistan, Al Qaeda trains and assists LeT, JeM cadres in operations against the government." So as you see, your edit is incorrect. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
no it is not. please read the sentence. it says "Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan". the operating words are "in Pakistan". Where as the article says "Kashmiri groups". So it is factually incorrect to equate the two in Pakistan and Kashmiri groups. If the article sentence said "Pakisani groups" then I would agree, but it is talking about Kashmiri groups which is not equivalent as per rules of ref in wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
That makes little to no sense. The general is being quoted, it is fully attributed as his opinion. There are no rules being violated here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
i dont think you understand the statement. The general suggests that the LeT and JeM in Pakistan have relations with Al Qaeda. But he does not say LeT and JeM in Kashmir have relations. There can be two entirely different organizations with same names in two different places, so this statement cannot be used to support this fact. The article statement is "had no ties with the Kashmir militant groups". ACtually the two words "in Pakistan" after that dont make sense too... hmmm. This sentence is not correct. It needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
If you "correct it" I will revert you per WP:BLP you cannot change what a BLP has said because you do not agree with it. He said there were no ties between Al Qaeda with LeT & Jem in Kasmir, he also said there is a connection between the groups in Pakistan. I am really not getting what you are driving at here, forgive me but I am quite exhausted. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
yes indeed. that is why i am saying that the sentence in the article needs rephrasing as it is not correct. if it is Kashmiri groups, then that is not established. But if it is in Pakistan, it is, so the sentence strong ties with Kashmiri groups is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.94.21 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Go fix it, I will check it tomorrow. Please look in here to discuss if I find any issues. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
ok i have edited it. the article clearly states "We are only aware of Al Qaeda's strong relations with JeM and LeT in Pakistan". "In Pakistan, Al Qaeda trains and assists LeT, JeM cadres in operations against the government". So this means that the groups operational under the JeM and LeT banner "inside Pakistan" are tied to Al-Qaeda where as the ones in Kashmir are not because "He also ruled out Al Qaeda's relations with Lashker-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)." and also because he said "we are only..." which means the kashmir counterpart is not. hope that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.61.59 (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Srebrenica massacre. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless that IP was you, you need to see that the IP made a blanket revert without discussion violating established consensus and reverting multiple edits, not me. You need to self revert... there's no explanation given for the revert you are redoing. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP was not me, however Jcala has done a great many edits since then which you are stomping. If you have an issue with the current version of the article fix those parts rather than massive reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
JCAla is free to redo what he was adding, however reverting an 8,036 long edit to save a ~100 is not feasible by anyway. I suggest you self revert and then fix only JCAla's edits (if you want them). The IP's revert also reverts many of other edits JCAla has been doing probably, I've not edited anything other than the infobox there per a previous consensus (which has also been reverted by the IP). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
In other words you do not like the edits which have been made as they mention Pakistan support for the Taliban. I support them as they are reliably sourced and fact. But you can revert me again now so feel free to. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I removed them per consensus about the infobox, your revert was redo of that IP's unexplained major revert. So it is not the matter of "like". I'll try to editconflict out JCAla's edit. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you please view the edit history of Jonathan S. Tobin. I was reverted by 109.150.60.218 who seems very Nangparbat-ish. However, the original edit came from Safi1919 who has a strange editing history; do you think this is Nangparbat too? Ankh.Morpork 21:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP is Nangparbat, unsure about the Safi1919 account, I have tagged it as a possible, let E check it out. This could have been a long term sleeper. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Elockid at SPI? Should I add it to Nang's SPI case file? Ankh.Morpork 09:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it gets added automatically when the tags are added to the userpage. You can ask him to look into the account, he may miss it as Nang has been busy of late[1] along with Highstakes00[2]Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I notify E if the account resumes editing as it seems to have gone into hibernation again. Ankh.Morpork 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The userspace
... of that B guy tells me everything. JCAla (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit mystified but why are you removing the info that the ip is adding to that article? Maybe there's a history there that I haven't seen but the info all seems to be referenced and relevant. Valenciano (talk) 09:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah okay but in that case I'd be inclined to file a WP:SPI or else block the sock but keep the content which does actually improve what was a short stub before. We shouldn't chuck the baby out with the bath water and this does look to me like a case of WP:IAR. Valenciano (talk) 09:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
All that stuff will be added, I intend to bring this article to GA status. The problem with Nangparbat socks are he usually copy and pastes creating copyvios and uses terrible sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't know the history of the sockpuppeteer, I just thought that the thrust of the content should be kept. Good luck with the GA. Valenciano (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree this is clearly Nangparbat . just saw you already have tagged him.--DBigXray 12:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
An award for you!
The dog's nose award
No one can identify socks as good as you. Keep up the good work! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 09:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, we seem to have a flood of socks these last few days. Most annoying. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir Edit
the edit is not about one man, it is about the fact that the man was an army major and the major was issued a passport to leave inspite of a court order in India. After that the extradition was never pursued. This is not action of one man, rather than a government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.186.174 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Please sign your posts with four of these ~~~~ Did you not see my post on the article talk page? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I thing he meant that in the sense of a neutral party rather than the arbitration case, when are these discretionary sanctions getting posted anyway? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing me to Twinkle. I don't know what I am supposed to do about a user who does not respond to messages on the user talk or article talk pages. What should I do? Just wait? There are now cleanup tags on the article page that should point the user to something helpful. Should I remove the 3RR warning, since the copy-paste warning is there? Or are you saying I should revert? Whesse (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
You do not need to remove any warnings given, you need not revert, I already did it. If a user continues to add copyright material on the twinkle drop down is one titled ARV, use this to report the user for copyvios. For users who break WP:3RR you need to post to WP:AN3, be sure to not break 3RR yourself, there are only a few exemptions. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Page
Okay...I've reviewed what you suggested and made the modifications that I hope meet your approval. If for some reason it does not, could you please be very specific as to what is objectionable. Thank you.Lisavn (talk) 08:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again...you wrote to me and suggested that I start in sandbox...I have done so. Could you please take a look and let me know your thoughts regarding whether I have remedied the issues. Thank you...Lisavn (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello...I am new to writing on Wikipedia and you just deleted my submission. I edited the page to remove anything that I thought could arguably sound non-neutral and I was in the midst of adding more references when it was deleted. Could you please offer me some advice, so that I might get it undeleted? ...or do I just need to start again. Thank you for time and help! Lisavn (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated.
Reverting socks is an exemption under 3RR, unblock me. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Clearly Nangparbat, who is banned. However I'd suggest even when it is, you seek help from elsewhere (i.e. WP:AIV) Black Kite (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've revoked your rollback flag because you used it in this edit war. Max Semenik (talk) 13:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
And another person who can't tell the difference between an edit war and reverting sockpuppets. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The two admins Magog and Dennis Brown have already accepted here [[3]] that he was a indeed a sock, Isn't this enough for the reviewing admin to lift the block ? --DBigXray 13:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
How would I know? IQ's seem to have dropped sharply overnight. Blocked for reverting a sock and roll back remove for reverting a sock, what a fucking joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've restored your rollback. Don't use it for anything other than obvious vandalism, though. As you've just found out, using it in a content dispute even if the other editor is banned can be mis-construed. Black Kite (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I see Black Kite beat me to the unblock, I was reviewing the rest of the situation. My apologies for the inconvenience. I do want to say here, please it is more effective to report these editors immediately to AIV, file a SPI etc. then keeping reverting them. While technically correct (exempt from 3RR etc.), it does keep inflaming the situation (and obviously does not help anyway). WP:RBI rearranged into BRI. It also avoids that you get blocked when an unknowing (and hence uninvolved) admin drops by and quick-evaluates a situation wrong. Again, my apologies. --Dirk BeetstraTC 13:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to all, and I did report to AIV, and requested page protection, I guess it all went awry today :o) No harm done really, I doubt my block log could have looked any worse :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well It(block log) indeed looks in a pretty bad shape. And most of the people commenting about the block log blindly go by the number of entries, rather than digging into the merit of those entries of blocks and unblocks. With Stalkers and Socks and few admins having a poor impression about you, I guess you need to be extra careful in your edits and reverts. --DBigXray 14:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I suggest creating a dossier for this gentleman at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse to make information about him more easily accessible? Max Semenik (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree This is very much needed for Nangparbat (talk·contribs). I wasnt aware that such a thing even existed. Thanks Max for pointing out.--DBigXray 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a content dispute and, without heavy vandalism or BLP violations from IP users, semi-protection would be inappropriate. If I were to protect, it would be full protection; the conflict has not reached a stage where that would be useful. If the conflict continues, full protection might be necessary, and if the IP editors continue without discussion, then semi-protection or blocks may be appropriate. At the moment, I'd encourage those involved to try to contact the editors, and perhaps seek dispute resolution. — User:ItsZippy
Read this as it might contain some valuable info on kashmir conflict. I already some from it into the article. Mrt3366(Talk?) 00:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
LMAO You have an awesome sense of humour,frustration and sarcasm! TheStrikeΣagle 13:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, humor and sarcasm good, frustration tends to get me blocked Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes....you need to take care of that...especially while dealing with admins... ( You know the reason ) Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 13:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:Kashmir conflict. Message added 10:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Awarded to Darkness Shines for his contributions in Recent changes patrolling and keeping vandalism at bay from articles and user pages. Keep up the good work. Special thanks for cleaning my page. DBigXray 15:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I think I can make a better shield than this, shall have a go later :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I think I missed the meaning here, what were you saying ? --DBigXray 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It meant exactly what it said, I will say no more. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok he was caught vandalizing an article by cluebot and got warned. was asking questions so was replying. he seems to have followed the threads on my talk page.--DBigXray 23:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not what I meant, never mind, I shall keep an eye out. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Random header
Regarding the changes to the Battle of Longewala, can u put in more info on how big a "Mobile infantry brigade" actually is? The data that i inserted was there for quite some time till some people(i guess, one knows who they are) started to vandalize the article(like putting Indian casualties at 200). it would be nice if someone could put in the breakdown of the pakistani forces.
The casualties figures also seem incorrect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanjsr2611 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You removed content which was sourced and replaced it with something which was made up one day Please read WP:V before doing this again. If you find a reliable source which gives accurate casualties figures that would be great, as there are currently none then Indian one should be removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
1RR
You violated your 1RR with a second move. Self rv. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
No I did not, feel free to report me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, neither of you are under a 1RR restriction??? --regentspark (comment) 18:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I undertook a voluntary one after SMS filed an edit war report on me, though I had not actually breached 3rr. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
He imposed one on himself to avoid getting block at an AN3 report [4] for a month. Only 14 days have passed. Now that he's not self reverting (which was also a courtesy message), this one needs to be handled properly. Reverts were made on move war here: [5] (a new article that was added to a list being watched by the users involved). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(1) He's only reverted once. He moved it, and then reverted when it was moved back. (2) He's right in the fact that name is neutral compared to the original. (3) Perhaps both of you could concentrate your time on actually making the article decent, because at the moment it's semi-incomprehensible. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks BK. I am looking for sources for the article at the moment funnily enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with BK. TG, let it go. I've looked at the AN3 report above and I don't think you're going to get DS blocked for a self-imposed 1RR violation. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello, this is Mlpearc from account creations, I am holding a request for an account which I believe might be from you. If you have submitted a request for a public use account could you please verify here by answering with your chosen username for that account and I will process your request and send your temporary password to the email address attached to the request. If you have not requested this account please confirm. Or you may email me the response. Cheers. Mlpearc (powwow) 19:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That was quick :o) The requested username is Nihil Novi Sub Sole. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, give me a few minutes and I'll send your credentials. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Done Happy editing, Mlpearc (powwow) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Preaching others what he doesnt follow himself
Apology for mentioning this on your talk page, but this is about a very awkward behavior that some editors are repeatedly showing against you and other editors. Ironically they are well aware of the page as well as the pretty obvious Policy shortcut that they use themselves. Notice the irony shown in this diff here. All these make me feel that these editors somehow live in an illusion that this shortcut is only to be used against others, and they are free to violate it on their convenience. I guess you can link this shortcut next time when they do it, or even better use this diff--DBigXray 08:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
What is good for the goose is obviously not so good for the gander in their world :o) I am still trying to work out what my COI is that Mar4d mentioned on the AFD for I&SST, does he think I am na Indian terrorist Darkness Shines (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Again
You've removed content again from the article even though it has not been confirmed as SPS. Self-revert please. Mar4d (talk) 08:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it is SPS and this was pointed out to you on the RSN board. I will not revert such contentious content into an article when it is sourced to a SPS. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
No, it was *not* declared SPS on the RSN board. It is sourced to Global Security and no such comments have been given at the RSN calling Global Security an untrustworthy source. I am reverting the edit for the time being unless the RSN board says that Globalsecurity.org is not a notable source (it's not by the way). Don't come to your own conclusion. Mar4d (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It is sourced to a self published book. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Islamophobia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you're familiar with this article. Recent changes at Template:History of India are causing a cite-error here... however, if my top edit to the template is reverted, the cite-error moves to other transcluded articles instead. Can this template be relocated or removed? -- WikHead (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I have removed it, I know a fellow who may be able to fix the issue and shall ask him to look into it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Thank you kindly for your quick response! -- WikHead (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Edit conflict at RS/N
I have no idea how that occurred, as I was removing obvious unsigned BLP violations, not changing section headings. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It was not you who changed them, it was the person in the sources dispute who did that. Darkness Shines (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Incidentally, darkness, you accidentally reverted Fife's changes as well as Mar4d's. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What's this?
diff why is he reverting again? Mrt3366(Talk?) 09:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That is an old habit. Let the RSN tag gets closed, and then you may clean all that POV and SPS. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me out. Seems like a block has taken place, hopefully the vandals will stop now. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 16:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem, BLP violators should be tarred and feathered. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Trolling
LOL - Please don't bring your dispute to my talkpage - let it go - regards - Youreallycan 18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The Zeitgeist Movement
I don't understand your edit summary. What does "Prt YRC & the block evader ATG (TW)" mean? Can you please translate this to plain English? And can you please use plain English in future edit summaries? (Please respond on my user talk page.) Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
DS has explained his cryptic edit summary on my talk page: "Should have been, "Per YRC & the block evader ATG" YRC - YouReallyCan ATG - Andythegrump. Both are experienced editors with a very good eye for editing, so if both of them were reverting you then you need to take it to the talk page rather than editwar. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC) IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
DS thank you for the feedback but your comment is completely, entirely wrong. (Except perhaps for DS's assessment of YRC and ATG's experience and editing skills, on which DS is probably right although I can't comment on YRC because I'm not familiar with his contributions - all I know is his case is in front of ArbCom. I've commented above on ATG's skills.) DS reverted my ZMF edit because he was under the impression YRC and ATG reverted it, but my ZMF edit was not previously reverted by any editors before DS. Thus, DS's edit summary and comment feels like DS reverted my edit just out of blind, knee-jerk support for YRC and and ATG, because DS's edit summary and comment don't provide any substance as to why ZMF should not be reported in the TZM article. DS will be well-advised to read my previous comment on Groupthink. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, consider doing the right thing and the honorable thing and reverse your own revert of my edit. Otherwise, I will ask an administrator (such as Bbb23, if he is an admin) to do so. WP articles are not supposed to be based on blind support of other editors, knee-jerk loyalty to other editors, and completely misguided motives. This sort of editing is unacceptable at WP. IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If you think I have loyalty to ATG go ask him. This is not a case of blind support, it is a case of knowing the judgement of the editors involved, the fact that ATG evaded a block to revert you tells me your edit was crap. You are welcome to ask anyone to revert me, I really do not care. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do me a favour and file a report before drive by tagging my user page I understand Nangparbat is your arch nemesis but your paranoid actions will harm your reputation by attacking legit users lime myself Westwoodzie (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
You are incredibly well informed for a "new" user. Quite amusing. See you on your next incarnation. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Holy shit, I thought all my take page lurkers were admins waiting for a chance to block me or socks of Nangparbat Nang is not so good at the baiting, I reckon he is hoping to score another block, not a hope in hell of that happening again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nang
He seem to have come this time with full preparation. Looks like we have to go to WP:SPI now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 10:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Already asked E to look into it, based on the comment above I am very sure this is Nang. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Congrats! Finally some rest. However I still can't believe that I welcomed Nang with a plate of cookies. Rich! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 11:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
It was a bit mean of you, he is a diabetic after all :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
^That was uncalled for. You know why.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I have no idea what you are on about, please enlighten me. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape in Northeast India. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK for cognitive vulnerability
Greetings. I found you from the DYK main page. I was wondering if you can add your two cents to this nomination. Your help is greatly appreciated. Khyati Gupta (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Very very late thanks
DarknessShines, you put a welcome message on my talkpage on 17 March 2012. But I was so novice that I did not know how to put a message on your talkpage to say "Thank you". So now I say "thank you very much", although I am still novice. Cheers, Egeymi (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for thanking me, it is nice to know people appreciate such a small gesture. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
wrong click
[6] used the wrong option, but read the talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
And what makes you think I had not read the talk page? Given the sheer amount of tags currently in that article those maintenance templates ought to stay, your revert has no basis in policy. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would I want to read an essay? Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Because it is easier for both of us to go to that page and read what I want to say instead of me copying that over. That is the reason of quoting essays. Not all our comments are quotes of policies, some are editorial judgements and there is nothing wrong with quoting essays in them as they are editorial judgements as well which endorse certain opinions. This would be the last time I'll explain to you the reasons for linking essays. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Was just reading it... due discussion is taking place.. no reason to edit war over tags then. The fact that the editor who placed them didn't respond was more off a reason to remove. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Did it not occur to you that I felt they were entirely appropriate? Did my edit summary not give you any clue at all? Not seeing that at all TG, I do see a lot of tags all over this article though so these should stay till they are gone) And why do you always call those who revert you edit war? It is not even remotely edit war. And why is it you always cite that other essay BRD but never follow it yourself? You were bold, you were reverted, you reverted. I did not know there was an essay called BRRD. Toodle pip.Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Now that you're inclined to quote BRD to me... this was well within BRD. His tags were addressed... he did not respond, and I reverted. Your revert said nothing other than "you do not see it" even after reading the talkpage. I'll not go into a discussion on how to reach consensus, but you should know better. Reverting in for an editor who does not care to respond himself tells itself. Anyway, this will not go anywhere... I told you what you long wanted to know.. the use of essays. That will do for this time. Rest can go to its own venue. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not quoting it, I was asking you a question, which you totally avoided I will restore the maintenance templates, as I said they need to stay until the inline tags are fully dealt with. See you on the talk page. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kosovo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Ryan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The link leads nowhere, and it dose not look reliable. i have removed it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Check this edit
Samar edited the page Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir1st time and then 2nd time, where he swiftly removed half the section of "enforced disappearances" and other pertinent facts in the name of copy-editing and then suggested (in the talk page) that: “do not include name and details of individual cases”
First of all, you don't appear to be an admin so do not litter my talk page with edit war accusations. Second, I had not edited that page today, and not for almost 24 hrs before then, and had certainly not made over 3 reverts in a 24 hr period.
In 'warning' me, you are encouraging users who are actually edit warring and ignoring consensus. (Personal attack removed) Take your 'warning' and apply it to a user who deserves it. حرية (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all I do not need to be an admin to warn you about edit warring. Second edit warring does not have to happen within a 24hr period. you have reverted the exact same line five times since 21:01, 16 August 2012. Thirdly do not make personal attacks against other editors. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are attacking me with false statements. Look, you obviously have a bias when it comes to this issue. Try and act like a responsible editor, gain consensus, and not make this kinds of talk page edits in future. حرية (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
What false statements? What attacks? You are edit warring per WP:EW. You made personal attacks against other editors in this section. I am unsure why you think I am attacking you, hell you just said you consider any edits I make to your page vandalism, and now you accuse me of "bias". Go away. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I will go away with pleasure, as long as you do not bother me again with these kinds of irresponsible smears. You instigated this unpleasant interaction. Also, while you are welcome to delete sections on your talk page as you did with this civility warning I gave you, do not edit other editor's comments in order to make the contents of the comments misleading, as you did with my first comment here—I welcome any readers to go back and read the comment in its original, unedited context. حرية (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comment was not edited at all, it is simply hidden. Calling editors trolls is a personal attack, one I will not leave visible on my talk page, do not presume to instruct me on civility after you did that. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Personal attack? I don't know or want to know these people. I'm making a judgement based on their actions and conduct. حرية (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
A cup of tea
You know old is gold but not always, some times silver!!.Thanks for correction!!.Justice007 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the tea, and I am glad you did not mind my correcting it :o) Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Byrne. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not an opinion. Neither mine nor yours
This is an encyclopedia. I don't have any problem. It's not upto us to decide if a source is by your words "crap" or not. It's not a place of opinion. Much of what happend in the war is the grey area. I haven't removed anything related to the Pakistani army. But it's fact (as the source shows) that rape has been committed by both sides. In fact many in Dhaka around 25,000 so-called "Pakistani-remnants" are disgraced on the base of their heritage. War crimes is a fact. War means bad, on both sides the source shows the crime committed by the opposition as well.
Once again not your opinion on source, hard fact, a reality. I'm not saying the scale is the same on both sides. But it has happend. (Wiki id2(talk) 10:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC))
I know that, which is why I added the rebels to the lede to begin with, stop using shit sources and duplicating content in the article and there will be no more problems will there. What you are doing is hideously POV is you are equating the atrocities carried out by the rebels with those of the Pakistani army, that quite simply will not do. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
fyi
I mentioned you at WP:ANI. I thought you had edit-warred at Template:Kashmir separatist movement, prior to nominating it for deletion. I thought another contributor was supporting your edit warring in the Tfd, and I said so at WP:ANI.
You are entitled to know this. Geo Swan (talk) 13:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, but why post it on my talk page? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I like as well as admire your modus operandi, and I frankly thought you might wanna know this. I didn't have any bad intent.
What is this? This is something, I created to increase constructive and collegialcamaraderie among small circles of the community and/or encourage more participation in editing. It might be useful to ward off alienation of depressed editors by getting them interested in various topics which they might like. Please don't say you don't like the idea behind it. This is less frigid and less formal kind of an approach.
P.S. If you would like me not to post that DYK again, let me know. It will make me a wee bit sad but I will refrain from doing so again. Mrt3366(Talk page?)(New section?) 08:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that you're really good with sockpuppetry. Perhaps you can help me out.
Yesterday (20 August), this I.P. made his/her first edit. The IP made 5 edits in total. All of these are related to I-P highly controversial topics, and the editing seems odd to me to be a first time editor. The editor hasn't edited since then.
Can you identify whether this is sockpuppetry, and what I should do next? I've been told about this sock Nangparbat, perhaps it's the same one, perhaps not.
Thanks.
I can email you more info if you'd like. --Activism1234 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
It is the same IP range and ISP as Nangparbat, I have never known him to edit middle eastern topics before however. It would be within his area of interest however. Probably better to file an SPI or ask User:Elockid to look into it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I opened an SPI here, but I don't think it's appearing on the main SPI page as an open case. Not sure how to fix this. --Activism1234 17:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
That page is watchlisted by several admins who deal with Nang, they will get to it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservatism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Burma. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Bride burning. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Domestic violence in Pakistan
Do you even check before reverting any edit? --SMSTalk 16:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Obviously, you reverted my move of that content to the political response section. What is the problem? Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You could have simply told me to rename it to whichever name you wanted. Since I am the creator, it would have been a speedy rename without a hassle. Now they have rejected my speedy-rename proposal due to the thread you started.
BTW, I wasn't trying to be mean or anything. I simply figured that since there is an article about Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism with fair amount of verifiable or justifiable content in it, it would be not POV to create a category on such basis. Nevertheless, I could have chosen the name more prudently. But you also could have talked to me personally.
We, you and I, have taken part in discussions together on several occasions and more often than not found ourselves on the same side of the argument. Can I not expect a bit of amicable or considerate approach from you as opposed to rash assumptions that I created that category solely to promote my POV? Mrt3366(Talk page?)(New section?) 09:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
If you have any complains against my editing or behaviour, or anything else on Wikipedia, always remember that you can come to me & talk to me first. I am amenable to any sort of discussion.
As I said previously, I was a little busy over the last few days. It does not matter if it gets deleted, just create a new category with a neutral name. I would recommend [[Category:Allegations of state sponsored terrorism]] which could be used on any number of articles. Facts, not fiction (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I reckon I will eventually have to do just that.
"Allegations of state sponsored terrorism" — hmmm.. it does sound intriguing but where does the name of the nation come in? Mrt3366(Talk page?)(New section?) 09:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
[11] This is why it is neutral, no specific country is named, the cat can be used for all nations accused of such. Already created so please help populate it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The annual death toll from terrorist attacks has risen from 164 in 2003 to 3318 in 2009, with a total of 35,000 Pakistanis killed as of 2010.
Pakistan is not in that article as they have never officially been designated as a nation which sponsors terrorism. However that may change over the next few weeks if clinton designates the Haqqani network as a terrorist group. Facts, not fiction (talk) 11:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
..during 2004-2007 the reports suggested that the country that has had to face the worst of terrorist attacks on its own soil, except for war-torn Iraq, is India?
Nothing can be done, it is a userspace draft. I dunno how long before WP:STALEDRAFT kicks in. Userspace drafts are allowed for a while at least, probably better to ask an admin. Also unsure why that was userfied, Mar4d still has it in userspace. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Mar4d still has it in userspace." - Where? That might be worth checking out. Mrt3366(Talk page?)(New section?) 03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Im new so i accidentally deleted info im trying to figure out how to protect an article thats is
being deleted its of an artist who was on American idol any idea how? to get it
it semi protected or fully protected its getting vandelized Also we are trying to add info under his picture like what record label he is signed with , tours and all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayvenom09 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I see no contributions[12] on any articles from you? Which article is it? Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I see, you created an article and it was deleted as it failed WP:GNG. I notice it again been created. But by a different user than yourself. A friend of yours?[13] You will either have to wait until such a time as this person becomes WP:NOTABLE before creating an article. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We are both fans of Jay he is well known I mean what more info do you guys need?
he was on American Idol, He is verified on twitter? VERIFICATION on twitter proves he
is a notable person--Jayvenom09 (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
That explains the vandalism. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mar4d (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fight OUT Loud. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
1RR?
Hello Darkness Shines. Can you comment on the status of a 1RR restriction that you apparently agreed to last February, as an unblock condition? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
That restriction was removed months ago after a discussion on ANI. I am not under any restrictions at all. Facts, not fiction (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And your edits have been reinserted by a Mike who just created a category, "Terrorism fueled by Pakistan". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You mean the cat I nominated for deletion? Yep I am a bad guy. 14:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, can you please link to the ANI where your February 2012 1RR was lifted? I have been through your talk archives starting with Archive 4 but I don't see anything about it being lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ask Regents Park, he was the one who lifted it. Facts, not fiction (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines disguised an advocacy study as an academic's work, and put her credentials in the main text as advertising for it. I quoted the misrepresentation on the DYK discussion page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romania. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Kashmir conflict and killbillbrowser's latest reverting spree
In the caste in one of his edit summaries (check the edit) he wrote, "I'm sorry India remains "the" paradigmatic example" of caste system presumably.
He also writes in Talk:India that "Caste, the social inequality deeply embedded in Hinduism now for over two thousand years, is the burden of Hinduism alone".
Is he not the classic definition of anti-Hindu, anti-India or what? Check his contributions and you will hopefully see that there is a disingenuous agenda working here. Check the discussion for more knowledge about the mode of thinking of this editor. Every opinion counts now. "Satyameva Jayate". Mrt3366(Talk page?)(New section?) 16:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you ought to listen to Fowler&fowler. That book is acclaimed yes, but as a travel book. It is not of any use for a history or cultural article. And I am quite sure (correct me if I am wrong) India is one of the last countries on earth in which the people on top continue to enforce the caste system? I do not think for a moment the F&f is anti anything, I suspect he is just accurate. I will look at the discussion, but you are going to be accused of canvassing as you seem to have posted this message on a fair few pages. Facts, not fiction (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Tell me, did you warn that particular contributor who for the last two days has been attacking me? Thought not. Facts, not fiction (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Iqbal bibliography
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ronald Reagan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Some blogs are certainly acceptable
The Miami Herald blog publishing the same stories they do in print is perfectly acceptable. Many professional journalists have completely acceptable blogs covered by the same editorial teams that publish their printed material. Blogs are not inherently unreliable or self-published. Insomesia (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Jim Naugle is a BLP. You are sourcing extreme statements regarding him to that particular blog. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Domestic Violence in Pakistan
The statement : "There are various factors associated with domestic violence in Pakistan. A lack of awareness about women’s rights and a lack of support from the government have been cited as two reasons." in the Factors section is not supported by the Reference # 14. Kindly check it. --SMSTalk 12:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Ignore it. --SMSTalk 14:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tenedos. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome, whoever i get an erase in my topic about the identity of the rebel force fighting in Aleppo. I think the interview of a person who take care the wounds of the rebels in their field hospitals are much important to understand the identity and the goals of the force fighting to Aleppo. Seeing this we might understand how they are able to set up bombs outside a hospital area.....Daily Star
Thanks for the cookies :)--Dimitrish81 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there,
there is an obvious sock: User:Gharjistan. I am not sure though, whose sock it is. Any idea? Keeps edit warring partly unverifiable content back into articles while removing verified content. JCAla (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wh odo we know who is a sock from Afghanistan or who is of Afghan heritage? Facts, not fiction (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the editors who edit this particular field but could it be User:Hazaraboyz who has several overlapping edits? Ankh.Morpork 18:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Hm. Lagoo. But, I don't think it is him this time. What do you do with a probable sock, who is completely failing to discuss ... ? JCAla (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, AnkhMorpork! Will check out your information. JCAla (talk) 19:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Ankh, I have filed an SPI[14] based on the edit overlaps. Facts, not fiction (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
You may find it useful to note that User:Nurbandma was a sock of Hazaraboyz and some of his edits show an Afghan interest. e.g 1,2Ankh.Morpork 19:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australian Greens. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
FYI - I declined to block the above IP address at WP:AIV and instead transferred your complaint to WP:ANI as a more appropriate venue, especially in light of the complaint the IP had already lodged there. --A. B.(talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Since you're already majorly involved in editing that page, I bring this to your attention:
I see there the Armed forces act (in July 1990 Indian Armed Forces were given special powers) is mentioned in the article Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmirbefore 1989 insurgency (that spurred ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs and in turn resulted in the controversial act being extended in that region), why is it so??? Comment on the talk if you will. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?) 18:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Keep a close watch on the article, I have changed the order and made some other changes. Mrt3366(Talk?)(New thread?) 11:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Please change your signature to correspond to your user name
Hi. Per Wikipedia:Signature#Dealing with signatures' behaviour issues, please change your signature ("Facts, not fiction") to something that more obviously corresponds to your username. Totally aside from the apparent fact that at least one other editor has said he finds your current signature to be offensive, the purpose of your signature is to identify your contributions to talk pages as having come from you — something which really doesn't happen if your signature includes no clear reference to your username. — Richwales 02:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Apart from that one user no other user has had an issue with it, I will not be bullied by FPaS. Facts, not fiction (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Northeast India
I see you went ahead with redirecting the Rape in Northeast India to Human Rights Issues in Northeast India. I had wanted to flesh out the article more before redirecting, but looks like my excuses for procrastinating are running thin. Do you have a plan for merging the rape content into the article or building other content? I haven't been able to devote the time to it that I wanted. I think the merger was a good move, but maybe a bit early. Now that it's done, we should make the new article that much stronger. —Zujine|talk 16:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I merged the content about rape to the target article, I did not copy the list of incidences over to the list article as the only one with an article was already there. I will expand the article over the next few days as time allows. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:California Proposition 8. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:European Union. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:19, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Family Research Council. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).
If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, OcaasiEdwardsBot (talk) 05:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Help with possible vandalism?
Hello! I'm not sure if you're an admin or not, but you seem pretty involved with anti-vandalism efforts whereas I'm only an occasional contributor who doesn't really know what to do about this, and you seem to have already had interaction with the person involved. I've noticed that User:Pakistani Soulja recently made an unhelpful edit to the article West Is West (2010 film), changing a sentence from "While the movie is set in Pakistan, it was in fact filmed in India." to "While the movie is set in Pakistan.", then I noticed that you've talked to this user in the past about making factually incorrect edits. I've reverted the edit (and checked that India was definitely where this film was shot) but like I said before, I (otherwise) have no idea what to do about this, I'm too unwell most of the time to be useful with such things, and I figured maybe I should mention it to you in case someone should be keeping an eye on this user's edits. Thanks! Xmoogle (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:UK Independence Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's good to hear! Thank you (Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC))
Quit bullying me around and stop posting on my talk page
I want you to stop posting on my talk page. McKhan (talk)
I am not "bullying you around"
I have little option but to post on your talk page when you edit war and indulge in sockpuppetry Darkness Shines (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, you are bullying me around as you have tried several venues in order to get me stopped from editing only those pages which I have knowledge of/about. And quit accusing me of "sockpuppetry" and "edit-warring" as you do it to each and every editor who disagrees with you. Once again, I want you to stop posting on my talk page AND quit bullying me around. McKhan (talk)
I do not accuse anyone of sockpuppetry who is not guilty of it. I do not bully anyone. It is not I who used sockpuppets to editwar and keep that particular article a stub for how many years? 6 or 7? You are a SPA who uses socks, who edit wars and who makes personal attacks, the last time you posted on this page as an IP you called me an "Indian retard" As I said, I will post on your talk page per policy, to warn you of edit warring or to inform you of further SPI's. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't you dare to claim that you are a saint and have never indulged into personal attacks or edit-warring. Anybody can see your acitivities on Wikipedia. I just refrain to engage with you, thus, I expect the same from you. Do NOT post on my talk page ever again and quit bullying me around using the clout of Wikipedia guidelines. McKhan (talk)
I have not claimed sainthood, and I doubt it will be bestowed upon myself by the church. Again, I do not bully anyone, please stop posting false accusations on my talk page. Per policy I have to warn you of edit warring, which I will do. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edit summary (Quit bullying me around and stop posting on my talk page:FFS) speaks for itself. I am sure you didn't mean to say For the Feaking Saint sake. Quit having this holier than thou attitude. McKhan (talk)
No I meant for fucks sake. I do not need a constant stream of emails from Wikipedia letting me know you have posted on my talk page. I do not need a hypocrite telling me to be civil after posting Get off my fucking back.. You God-damn little Indian RETARD. Go and bully around someone else. AND you can shove up your SPI up you Indian ASS. on this page. Noe do I need advice from an edit warrior who used socks to keep an article at a stub for years, nor from a SPA who is pissed off at being caught out using socks to editwar on said article. For a guy who wish's no interaction with myself you are doing a piss poor job of it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hunger strike. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Lough Neagh. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Police state. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Do you think this tag needs to be there? If not please feel free to tell me and I myself will remove it. I am in a real quandary regarding the issue. Killbillbrowser has removed the tag twice asserting it's unneeded because there was no dispute (a claim which is falsified by multiple archived discussions). I don't wish to engage in an edit war but this seems to be heading that way. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 07:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Your signatures
As Akhilleus rightly pointed out, editing the same talk page discussion with two different accounts and dissimilar signatures comes across as misleading. I recognize you have linked the two accounts through your user pages, but to the casual reader it still looks as if there were two editors agreeing with each other. Can you please change your "nihil novi" sig so that it clearly identifies you as D.S.? Fut.Perf.☼ 13:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Paul Ryan. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Possible sock?
The User:Ahsanch12345 has now been blocked for disruptive editing, I feel that the account is a SPA, I think its another account of another new user User:Ahsan007 who was also editing Siachen conflict, what do you think?--sarvajna (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I think your correct, you should file an SPI Darkness Shines (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
This "007" & related stuff seems familiar, don't you think? JCAla (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Why are you notifying me instead of him? Mar4d (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Read the message again. It says,"a page you substantially contributed to." ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 13:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
That was twinkle, not me. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
How did Twinkle direct the notice to my talk page? Just curious. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The page was created by you, and then moved to Lihaas's userspace. So twinkle will send the notice to you. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 13:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Regardless, the userspace owner has not been notified. Mar4d (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of In The Shadow Of The Sword (book)
Hello! Your submission of In The Shadow Of The Sword (book) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Till 13:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Karaköy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
AE
Hey, you have been mentioned here. No worries though. :) Cheers, JCAla (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I guess that this is the only way to stop the epic admin-shopping going through here. Some admins have really crossed the limits. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 07:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Future Perfect at Sunrise has long crossed the limits. Have a look here at the massive removal of content, a lot reliably sourced, the complete change of the lead and ridiculous bullying rvs such as this one. JCAla (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Note that sanctions against yourself are also now on the table in the AE thread. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised? Well I don't have time to waste on your childish games, you prefer to see people banned rather than collaborate. Your naught but a trouble maker. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
It wasn't me who suggested those sanctions against you here. Fut.Perf.☼ 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Ya right. Look I am too busy to even respond over there at the moment. I got in from work ten minutes ago and am now heading back out. Unlike you I was willing to discuss your edits, the only person who should be in the shit here is you for your editwarring. You got what you were after, revenge, enjoy it and do not post here again, I have no time for such as you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
This is getting sick. I think that two de-syopings, three blocks and five-six topic bans would have resolved this dispute long ago. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 16:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hetalia: Axis Powers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Imbros. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ceviche. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you please come up with an interesting hook? At the moment, this nomination is in trouble because none of the proposed hooks have been sufficiently interesting and neutral. Looking for an idea that isn't reliant on the book's reviews might help. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
In the sockpuppet investigation you have said two things that I would like to ask you about. Firstly, you said "This is ABDEVILLIERS alright." Would you be willing to tell me why you are so sure? (By email if you wish to avoid WP:BEANS problems.) I would go ahead and indef-block if I were as sure as you seem to be. Secondly, you said "The IP posting here is a blocked account BTW." This does not surprise me at all, in fact I suspected as much, but I don't know what account it is. If you can tell me, and if it isn't glaringly obvious also give me an indication of what the evidence is, I will consider whether to block there, too. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet?
I accidentally reopened the Ohioana thing, but I wanted to let you know that I did it. It'll probably be re-closed, but I would like to find out if all of the various accounts are the same person. To be honest, the amount of editing is all so similar I wouldn't be surprised if it was.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Darkness Shines. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Al-Ahbash. Thank you. -- McKhan (talk)
Sign this so it gets archived Darkness Shines (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Mrt3366's talk page. Message added 08:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Have you seen today's on this day section? Also see my comment on the talk page. All this was alleged based on ambiguous and probably biased reporting. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 16:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Responded there, however you are sadly mistaken if you think this is an allegation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Citation
Did you read the citation for this [15]? Where does the source support the weasel you added? You've made over 10k edits, you aren't new. Rather I should say, why are you inserting an interpretation of a source when it isn't in the source and you know it's not, and you know it's not an accurate portrayal of the secondary source. Alternatively, if you do not know what is in the source, why are you making the edit? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes I read that editorial. I do not think I added a weasel term at all, I had hoped for a compromise. As for where in the source does it support my edit? It does not have to be in the sources, as it is an editorial. Which as I am sure you know is no more than an Op-Ed. Which may not be used for statements of fact. Take your aggressive tone elsewhere, it won't work here. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Apologies if my tone seems harsh, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually it was not, I was just tired and cranky. My apologies for my own tone. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, :) IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for In the Shadow of the Sword (book)
On 24 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article In the Shadow of the Sword (book), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that while researching In the Shadow of the Sword, Tom Holland found that the oldest biography of Mohammed was written two hundred years after he had died? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
See User:XMTTlol. I noticed the user at recent changes because of the extreme nature of his delete. While I welcomed the new editor, I wasn't sure of what to do about the delete. Thanks for showing up and showing me. --Buster Seven Talk 13:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice to meet you as well, I prefer auto archiving as there are less chance of recent comments being removed, which the new fellow had done. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm working and invesigating at getting better at understanding tools. etc. So...what you did was add {{Miszabot|config}} so that the talk page of the article would automatically archive rather than depend on a future editor haphazorlyy, and perhaps with malice, moving the thread to History. Is taht accurate? Thnks. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
More or less, easy way is copy & paste an existing one to the article talk page, then just change the target to that article talk. Also the number start of course, you don't want archives starting at 20 Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The world is full of mads, you can't help all of them. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛TalkEmail 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
My recent block for outing violations...
...does not appear to have ever happened according to either my block log, or indeed my memory. I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. EggCentric 05:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, where have I written that you were blocked for outing? I wrote the PM had been blocked for it. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at WikiPuppies's talk page. Message added 17:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Excuse me, but why did you undo my edit of adding Israel to the state terrorism list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairyTale'sEnd (talk • contribs) 06:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it does not point to an article on terrorism. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
From the article:
"Condemnation as terrorism
Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments, and in media such as The New York Times newspaper,[17][18] and by the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry.[19] In 1946 The World Zionist Congress strongly condemned terrorist activities in Palestine and "the shedding of innocent blood as a means of political warfare". Irgun was specifically condemned.[20]
Menachen Begin was called a terrorist and a fascist by Albert Einstein and 27 other prominent Jewish intellectuals in a letter to the New York Times which was published on December 4, 1948. Specifically condemned was the participation of the Irgun in the Deir Yassin massacre:
"terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants – 240 men, women and children – and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem."
The letter warns US Jews against supporting Begin's request for funding of his political party Herut, and ends with the warning:
"The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a "Leader State" is the goal."
[21]
Lehi was described as a terrorist organization[22] by the British authorities and United Nations mediator Ralph Bunche.[23]"
Is that enough? Or should the article have "Terrorism" in it's title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairyTale'sEnd (talk • contribs) 09:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not enough. The template is for state sponsored terrorism That article is not about SST is it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
First it's not terrorism now you say it's not state sponsored terrorism? The "political violence" occurred on a foreign country, it should have had a sponsor. OK, your call. Please help me find a good place for such a straight forward article on Zionist terrorism in the template. By the way, Saudi Arabia and Turkey need articles, too. FairyTale'sEnd (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstand. Unless the actions carried out by a set group are supported by a state it is not SST. Nor is it state terrorism. I do not recall Turkey ever being a sponsor of terrorism, any article on that should be deleted. And we have an article on Saudi Arabia and state sponsored terrorismDarkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the Saudi Arabia, just added it to the template. But about Zionist terrorism, It does not belong to the list because it was independent? Not likely. I am going to try to find the sponsors and will be back with some reliable sources. And for Turkey, There will be enough evidence to make an article after the Syria clash settles down. It's just a matter of time. FairyTale'sEnd (talk) 13:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be confused. This edit [16] makes the bizarre assertion that you've removed some text because of someone called "Mckibben" who appears to have nothing to do with the removed text. Please try to be more careful.
Also, if you're retired, you should stop editing. If you aren't, you would be better removing the "retired" banner. Unless its just there to make some kind of point, I suppose William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppet
I am quite familiar with the methods that are frequently used to intimidate or shut down rival users on Wikipedia. I must confess, however, that I am not current with the policy legalese. If my IP address or location can be checked against that of Cwmacdougall, which I am in favor of, it will be demonstrated that we are two different people. It is absurd to think this was even necessary, however. I brought the article to Cwmacdougall's attention via the WikiProject Russia page, and I don't have the time or interest to create alternate personas for the purpose of talking to myself on Wikipedia pages. I do not know the editors on either side of the dispute. InformedContent (talk) 06:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
DS, come on, using an edit war as an excuse to file an SPI should be beyond your capability. Furthermore, your your battleground mentality on the SPI, where you said "A slap on the wrists this time should suit", is inappropriate and uncivil. I took a good while just to pour over the evidence that I went digging for myself (which I really shouldn't of done, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt) and I could just find enough to justify a check. This is also another instance of where you are biting new editors by tagging their userpage, especially as a new editor. I want to help you to find a solution where you can still work with the SPI team and WP admins, without all this extra crap, but your making it hard to do so. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 00:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
DS, it is immensely challenging contributing to a subject area rife with serial sockpuppets and to continue to assume good faith when dealing with new editors that evince a similar POV. If you ever want a second opinion on an SPI, don't hesitate to ask me. Ankh.Morpork 00:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
DQ, a slap on the wrists means I would prefer a stern warning given over a block. And a new editor turning up to revert for another new editor seems suspicious enough to me to file an SPI. I very much doubt I am the first to do so in fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I checked, and Cwmacdougall's edits go all the way back to 2007. He has apparently not edited with regularity from then to now, but I would hardly say that qualifies him as a "new editor". InformedContent (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
(Sorry for the delay in response. Damned midterms and projects) @DS, yes I got the idea of what you meant, but your involved with the subject area, and the only evidence you put out against a long term contributor is two diffs in an edit war, that are obviously going to be the same content and your calling that a sock. I thought you would have at least gone through the contribs to find a little more than that. I'm not saying you were wrong to file the SPI, as hell I ran the check myself, but the way you approached it is what the issue is. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Amendment request declined
This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request naming you as a party has been declined.
For the Arbitration Committee, --Lord Roem (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "White Terror". Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
SPI
Have you filed at WP:SPI regarding this issue? If not then you should do because explicitly accusing people of being socks without actually doing something about it is likely to get you into trouble. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - I didn't spot it. I'd still be wary of stating someone is definitely a sock before the SPI is over, but your mileage may vary. The number of times I have thought it is immense! - Sitush (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Inquiry of assertive action on the article regarding Hazara persecution
Hey, I'd like to ask the exact reason the user User:Arctan371 is being punished for? He recently left his concerns on the Feedback dashboard ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:FeedbackDashboard/58083 ), and I feel a tendency to defend his cause, since I went through the same thing in the past, and my ethnic group is going through a slower version of the same thing. Depending on what the reason was for his punishment shall I defend him, of course. It seemed, at first glance, that his edits were constructive, with some of them having a source, though with some grammatical errors that could very easily be fixed. Why were these contributions not accepted and fixed? Why were they blocked, including the part with a citation? I'm curious, and slightly afraid that this dispute is involving vengeful tactics, instead of fair, balanced, and calm resolution from both sides equally. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I reverted him based on this [18] That and the fact he has not used the talk page, nor citations. I am not from Pakistan and if you look at this talk page [19] you will see I am not trying to hide anything, I have in fact given academic sources for the article which discuss the ongoing genocidal actions against these people. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up... I'll try and improve that article once the issue with the sockpuppetry and POV blows over (issues which Sitush told me about). --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Gaza flotilla raid
Regarding your recent edit[20], there is in fact a lot wrong with the material "apart from the description". You might have found this out if you had looked at the cited source or consulted the relevant talk page discussion before reverting.
The cited source is in fact a video created by a youtube user using some footage from a fox news report and other footage from unknown sources spliced together to create a montage to which the youtube user has added his own commentary and soundtrack. As such it does not meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source. Also adding any editor's interpretation of the video to a Wikipedia article would be OR. So whether it is Nableezy's interpretation or the sockpuppet of a blocked user's interpretation that you restored it would be equally inappropriate. Dlv999 (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
NO, it is a single image. Not a video. There is an issue with it, but if you do not see it then this is not really my problem. The licence on the pic is fine, the image is RS regardless of what you guys think. Ask politly and I shall let you know what the problem with that image is Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You need to look at your diff You restored a blocked editors OR interpretation of a (non RS) you tube video, giving the video as the citation. Dlv999 (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I need do no such thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It's nice that you made a new friend in AnkhMorpork, I am very happy for you. What isnt nice is you foolishly restoring material cited to a youtube video uploaded by some random person on the internet. In case you hadnt noticed, you didnt restore an image. You restored, without comment, material sourced to among the crappiest sources I have seen used in my time here. So, congratulations for that. For that incredibly foolish edit you have earned yourself a shiny notification of the ARBPIA case. If you insist on tagging in for your new pal to make foolish edits, you may well be reported to AE. nableezy - 19:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
That gave me a laugh. As for your request, no. nableezy - 17:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool. I have a new friend. I can't wait to see what goodies you will next pluck out of your bag; a shiny notification, a new friend - Santa look out! Ankh.Morpork 17:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It is somewhat ironic that Nab takes it upon himself to slap crap notices on my talk page, and at the same time violates the sanctionsNo 2 he is informing me off with his accusations of tagteaming, perhaps I ought to file an AE on him Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
After that edit with that edit summary you accuse me of violating decorum? Giggle. Feel free to take that to AE. nableezy - 22:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a hearty "ho ho ho" is more in character then a mere giggle. I mistakenly restored a source that I believed came from the IDF channel. DS thought he was restoring a picture. Why can't this be resolved without savage accusations of meatpuppetry, racism and the good ol' AE threats being bandied around?Ankh.Morpork 22:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If you are going to make a habit of edit warring content into an articles in favour of blocked sockpuppets you should make damn sure that the content is appropriate for the encyclopedia. Obviously in this case you did not even go to the bother of looking at the content you were restoring for the AJH sock, because if you had looked at the video you would have known immediately that it was not an IDF released video. If you weren't familiar with the content you were restoring, what exactly led you to the decision to edit war the content in favour of a blocked sock? Dlv999 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
By "habit of edit warring", are you referring to a single edit that I made? I fear that I cannot relate to your hyperbolic, frenzied depiction and therefore cannot provide a suitably placatory response. Ankh.Morpork 22:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
First off, you restored two AJH sock edits within the space of 1 minute yesterday. Secondly, in your rush to make snide retort you failed to read my comment carefully. I said "If you are going to make a habit of edit warring content...". If I'm honest I'm not sure if you have done it before yesterday. It's certainly an issue that arises every time an AJH sock is blocked. Instead of just removing the ridiculous material and sources that he has added, an edit war always evolves with editors warring in favour of his content. Personally I am finding it very hard to imagine a good faith explanation as to why someone would edit war in favour of a blocked sock if they are not familiar with the content. Dlv999 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
If you have any comments that directly relate to my actions, feel free to express them. I would appreciate, however, that you refrain from mentioning me in nebulous, hysterical declamations - I am uncomfortable serving as the object of someone's catharsis, and desist from providing advice for unlikely eventualities, and invoking the "if clause" as justification. You again query "why someone would edit war"; is this specifically addressed to me or is this speculative musing and more widely applicable? Ankh.Morpork 23:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm directly asking you why you restored a blocked sockpuppet's edit if you were not familiar with the content and had not even watched the video that you were restoring. Personally I am unable to think of a good faith reason why you would revert in favour of AJH if you have not even looked at the source in question. Dlv999 (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
First, you responded when I asked if your "edit-warring" accusations were addressed to me that I myopically failed to consider the all important "If". Now you state that, in fact, your exaggerated edit-warring contentions do relate to a single edit. You additionally presume I had not looked at the source; I direct you to my comments at 22:43, 14 November 2012. Ankh.Morpork 23:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello Darkness Shines. Regarding your edit here. Arbcom has made clear that non-admins can issue notifications of discretionary santions. If you think there were no grounds to notify you under WP:ARBPIA, you could open a complaint at WP:Arbitration enforcement and ask for the warning to be removed. Nobody has ever done that, and the chances of success are not high. I suppose there could be such a thing as a 'frivolous notification', but this one doesn't appear to be frivolous. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
ANI
Sorry, I removed your post. The red edit notice at the top of the edit window when you post at ANI clearly tells you not to post privacy issues there. If you're concerned about a privacy issue, putting a link to it on one of the busiest and most viewed pages in WP is a really bad idea. You should contact an oversighter or admin privately as Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents instructs. Apologies again for removing your post, but I'm sure you can understand why. Begoontalk 17:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
In case you were not still around, I also passed a note of your post on to User:Dennis Brown, here. He has blocked the IP for trolling, and RevDel'd the offending posts. Begoontalk 17:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
November 2012
Do not create, add, or restore hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. EleoTager (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Really? With Nangparbat socks we have always redirected the talk to the user page. Best I stop doing that as well Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I just recalled why we redirect talk pages, [21] you double up on the sockpuppet page. Best to redirect, which can also be consistent Darkness Shines (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for reminding me about the citation. I have added a reference before. But somehow and someone removed that. I will upload and add reference that one more time tomorrow.
There are two updates you deleted and I would like to retain them after we both agree. Now, let's agree that I didn't deleted any useful information, manipulated any message, or dramatically changed the section.
1. Change #1:
The first two lines that I added were made to give a context of why Al-Ahbash are perceived controversial, in order words, why this section, it was a summary to the below evidence, the below lines are written by other authors citing over 5 sources. The summary says that Al-Ahbash are always deemed controversial because they are supporting governments and continuously backed by the same government. In the same section, other authors said that "Muslim Brotherhood" accused the government of Jordan for backing Al-Ahbash in their "war of mosques". In Australia, the National Imam requested from the government to back-off from supporting Al-Ahbash in acquiring the National Islamic Radio broadcasting license MCRI. In Ethiopia, Salafi protesters claimed that the government is backing Al Ahbash to take over the preaching in mosques. In Germany, Al-Ahbash were the only association license to build the biggest Islamic center in Germany based out of the capital, Berlin. And so on, so forth.
2. Change #2:
I have made a correction to a wrong statement that says "Al-Ahbash are controversial within Islam for its anti-Salafi.... and Sufi beliefs. As Muslim, you'd never be controversial for being "anti-Salafi" or any other Islamic sect or group, a Muslim group could be or sound controversial for specific beliefs or practices in Islam.
Are you now satisfied with the justification? If not, I'm more than happy to bring a third editor.
Cheers, TarekKassar (I don't know how to stamp my name) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarekkassar (talk • contribs) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Whats you nationality? Tadadum (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Stay away from my talk page. Don't clutter it with your frivolous, bias and partial "warnings".
Stay away from my talk page. Don't clutter it with your frivolous, bias and partial "warnings". McKhan (talk)
Sure, next time you do a copyvio I'll just report you them. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Check this and forget about retiring
Have you recently checked Talk:Kashmir conflict? If no, do it again. Killbillbrowser is deliberately trying to insert a quote that is not backed by the source itself. You're more experienced than me maybe you will know what is the right course of action. I also initiated a discussion here. Don't retire man. Take a break if you want.
But don't retire. Wikipedia needs editors like you. Hell, we need more of you, not less. There are simply too many good editors retiring. Don't fucking retire!! Do you understand? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SMSTalk 21:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Basalisk's talk page. Message added 23:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please don't forget to log your P-I notice to this IP. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Your revert on Kashmir Conflict
There is a discussion going on for the edit you made on the Kashmir Conflict. Please do NOT until a resolution has been reached. Please undo this and revert it back to the state it was in, otherwise I will report you for abuse of your revert rights (and use of Twinkle). Killbillsbrowser (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to report me wherever. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just do yourself a favour KBB and Shut the heck up, enough of your filibustering. You are the real civil pov pusher here, yes report me as well.
Thanks Darkness Shines, good judgement on your part. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 18:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar
Rarely have I seen such resilience go unappreciated by others. Hence, from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU for the steadiness of your contribution amidst the vicissitude of life. When it comes to you, I dare say almost every edit counts. Good luck. Nice seeing you around by the way. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 19:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry but I do not appreciate a barnstar given over a content dispute, I would appreciate you withdrawing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
It was not given over a content-dispute. You didn't even take part in that dispute. I think this Barnstar is for what it claims. Come on! Don't be such a douche Man. Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 09:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorists, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. SMSTalk 19:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. nableezy - 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for helping to search citation
Hi, thanks for helping here, definitely we will require your help further, I will update you for further assistance and advices, very soon. Thanks once again Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a problem, happy to help out with citations at any time. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
While you did go back to the last stable version, the i believe specific new content you removed was neutrally presented, accurately reflective of the sources, and sourced to reliable publications. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I have RV's back to your last edit, is the suitable? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks and no I am not the IP and dont know where they came from. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Your non-admin closure
I object to you closing an obviously conflicting AFD like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Tel Aviv bus bombing and I undid your action. You should allow an administrator (which you are not) to follow procedure and close it correctly, whatever the outcome. Non-admin closures of AFDs like these because you think the outcome is "obvious" can be considered vandalism as far as I am concerned. §FreeRangeFrog 23:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Im not sure if this goes to AE, or ANI, but its going somewhere. nableezy - 00:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
The AE has been making some progress. Now would be a good moment for you to post an apology there for your remark to Sean. This might clear the way for the complaint to be closed. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ed. I have already said sorry to Sean[23] and did so once I had seen his comment[24] on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Per White privilege can one person over ride a controversy that has not been resolved?dispute What is the point then of a talk page if your understanding of NPOV replaces the talk page controversy? --Inayity (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I saw your comment on the talk page[25], which is why I reverted you. You seem to think you do not need to discuss, however have to with those who disagree with you. That is policy. I also agree with the edit[26] as it is accurate.Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
My comments? Is it only my comments on the talk page. Is your opinion is so powerful that you do not need to explain your edits? Just your agreement is enough? It was not I that wrote the lede, I didnt start the dispute, so I am following the outcome of the talk page,which needs to be resolved on the talk page not by you alone. You and me are two single people, hence why the talk page exist. Yet you have the cheek to tell me "I seem to think I do not need to discuss" where is your discussion? Have you even looked? How should people not involved in a dispute help the process? a. Go with what they believe, or b. follow WP:DISPUTE --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism?
Why was my edit tagged as vandalism? I thought we were supposed to have articles that are accurate, and I felt like my edit made the article more accurate. Did I not follow the required protocol, or what exactly? Afrikan Liberationist (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Adding unreferenced information to an article in which you call a guy a racist idiot looked like vandalism to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I take your point made here [27] about the guy being dead. The block was, however, for vandalism, which you appear to concede. And as you know an indefinite block is only until the editor can demonstrate that an unblock will not damage the encyclopedia.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
UKIP
Please abide by WP:BRD. I seen no rough consensus in the discussion we had for this wording. Per WP:BRD you must not enforce a reverted change without discussing it and getting consensus. Whilst I do not oppose the statement that UKIP state that they are a libertarian party, I oppose making the wording changes that weren't agreed to. Mabuska(talk) 23:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Also note that in the most recent change I've made, the wording that had rough consensus allows for more 3rd party sources to be used which gives the statement more credibility and less excuse for editors to challenge it on guidelines. Your prefered undiscussed change allows for only one source 1st party source. Mabuska(talk) 00:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there any policy against formation of cabals? ITopgun, Mar4d, Smsarmad....always manage to find and wind up in the same side when any India or Pakistan related article is nominated for deletion. How come? Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 13:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Because they all push the same point of view, which is nothing bad must be said about Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
deltasim blp vio
sup man, I never used this before so bear with me ok? I am a friend of realfatrabbit and he got blocked and asked me to let you know that deltasim didn't like the result of the edit war between him and relafatrabbit. It was about a BLP vio. deltasim I guess went to another admin called jamesbwatson and had realfatrabbit blocked. the admin called jamesbwatson then added back the stuff deltasim added that was the BLP vio which realfatrabbit kept removing and caused the edit war. anyways, thats that, he just wanted me to tell you. thanks man
I happened to notice that you reverted an edit made by an IP recently. Fine, no worries. Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to the following and I hope that you might be kind enough to make some more edits (only if you deem it fit) to the same article about the massacre of Hazara Minority in Balochistan. Apparently, that IP was not exactly fibbing.
The Hazara community has been targeted, with great impunity, by outlawed militant organisations on at least six occasions in the current year. While all attacks have claimed precious lives, one of worst attacks against the community came last September, when a bus carrying Hazara passengers was stopped by assailants heavily armed with rocket launchers and Kalashnikovs. They identified Hazara men, took them off the bus and slaughtered them one by one within half a kilometre from a security check post. A similar incident was repeated a few days later in Akhtarabad area of Quetta. Some unconfirmed reports say “over 800 Hazaras have been killed in 24 incidents of mass-murder and 131 targeted ambushes since 2001.”
"The locations of the hideouts and training camps of the groups involved in attacks on Hazaras are not secret," Sardar Sa'adat said. "The government and the law-enforcement agencies seem to have no interest in protecting us."
By the way, the Pakistani Army and its intelligence wing, the ISI, have accused foreign interference in Balochistan's affairs, without directly responding to allegations against themselves for allowing the banned terrorist organizations to operate freely and with complete impunity (further info on BBC-ref and Deadly Connections: States That Sponsor Terrorism By Daniel Byman, ISBN0-521-83973-4, 2005, Cambridge University Press, pp 155).
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Dear Darkness Shines,
Please explain why you have engaged in an editing war with me, reverting my edits four times--three using the undo botton--without leaving any substantive discussion in the talk page of the article as I had repeatedly requested in my edit summaries [28]. You've also made a number of unpleasant accusations in a remarkably uncollegial manner on my talk page [29]. I do not believe calling on me to "stop reinserting junk" is called for, especially since you've reverted those edits four times without substantive explanations of your actions despite my requests. I maintain that there is no copyright violation involved in my post, and you linkvio suggestion needs to be proven. In addition, contrary to what you claim, a number of the articles i cite explicitly mention Judge Nizamul Huq's association with the Nirmul Committees; and a more detailed explanation as to the reliability of secularvoiceofbangladesh.org would be in order.
I await arbitration on these matters.
Aminul802 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Attention needed in International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) Article
Hi there, I just wanted to check with you why the recent content by User Heyitsoil7 was removed? I thought the content was actually well referenced and decently written. Zhanzhao (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It was a sockpuppet of Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I see. But based on the merit alone of the content what was written seems quite proper though. Also WP:DENY is an essay, not a policy/guideline. Since WP:DENY's objective is to discourage vandalism and this is not the case here, we can make it very clear on the TALK page of the article that the revert is an exception for good content. I've added an entry in Women in India's talk page regarding this, we can continue any discussions there. Zhanzhao (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, is the inference that "1 in 4 Indian men have committed sexual violence at some point in their lives. Additionally, 1 in 5 has reported to have forced his wife or partner to have sex with him." (page) reliable enough based on a survey by International Men and Gender Equality or is it only conveying a partial image? More importantly, is the survey itself credible? It was conducted by ICRW. I ask this because there are approximately 600+ million men in India alone and they surveyed 8,000 men and 3,500 women (18 to 59 years) from Brazil, Chile, Croatia, India, Mexico and Rwanda. Here is the link to the survey results itself. It may require some input from you though.Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?) 21:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. MehrajMir (Talk) 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you daft? You already violated 3RR and are adding OR to the article, go self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi.Shines
Hi, all active editors are vanished or less busy. How are you, I do not see you any more active here?. God bless you.Justice007 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's the holidays, I expect a lot of editors are having fun My computor died on me and have just gotten a spare. So shall probably be a little more regular with my editing now. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
It's nice, I miss neutral editors.Justice007 (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
ANI
G'day Darkness Shines, I see you are active on ANI at the moment (everyone else must be on holidays...) could you please have a look at [30] on ANI and let me know if I am overreacting and should pull my head in? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Well I see Tom has already warned the guy, so other than filing an SPI you should wait for the ANI thread to conclude, I am not an admin so can do very little unless you are asking me to check for socking? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I was just looking for a sense check in terms of how I'm viewing this stuff. Am I being reasonable? I respect your neutrality, just looking for a uninvolved view. I'm sure Tom has it in hand. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I see you are working on bringing it up to GA status, so i imagine you are frustrated that some IP's come along and screw around, I do not think you are being unreasonable no, just annoyed as any decent editor would be. Just make sure you keep your cool and try not to get dragged into any edit wars, I will watchlist the article for a while to keep an eye on things. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You said, "If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page." Yet I was blocked from editing this page from the IP address that you blocked. Why are you censoring me and then lying to me? My response to "Reaper Eternal" was as civil as this individual's behavior was in censoring a conversation for no reason. What the hell is going on at Wikipedia? It's clearly even more fascist than I had realized. Will I be blocked for saying that? Probably, considering I can't even post a message on here today without being blocked a dozen times. 67.238.153.107 (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
You do know that if you have already been blocked, this could be considered block evasion? --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry? Which talk page did I leave the message on? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Re: A barnstar for you!
Thank you for the barnstar! It is an honor to receive one from you. You might want to fill out an SPI anyway just to document it. I revdel'ed all of the edits because the allegations were pretty substantial with no sourcing. The semi-protection should settle the article for awhile, too. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree This is very much needed for Nangparbat (talk · contribs). I wasnt aware that such a thing even existed. Thanks Max for pointing out.--DBigXray 20:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
TheStrikeΣagle 13:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Darkness Shines (talk) 13:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Done
.jpg)
Iraq
India
Afghanistan
Colombia
Thailand
Russia
Hello! Your submission of In The Shadow Of The Sword (book) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Till 13:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
