User talk:DarkKing Rayleigh

Welcome to Wikipedia!!![edit]

Hello DarkKing Rayleigh! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am happy to be the first person to welcome you to English Wikipedia! I have prepared this welcome message to help you with your continued adventure here, check out the links below or just visit the new contributors' help page! Happy Editing! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started: Tutorials and Training

Click on "show" to the right to expand

We have some interactive tutorials and trainings you may want to try:

And some regular articles you can just read:

Getting Help: How and Where to Ask a Question?

Click on "show" to the right to expand

There are numerous ways you can ask for help.

You can ask me on my talk page.
You can copy and place {{helpme}} with your accompanying question on the bottom of your talk page and someone else will show up shortly to answer your questions here.
You can try one of the specialized fora listed at the "Where to ask a question" page.
If you prefer live chat, try #wikipedia-en-help IRC chat room. Click here to get connected through your browser!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date

On a final note, you may want to try the new (beta) VisualEditor, check out our weekly newspaper, the Wikipedia Signpost, and join a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question. . For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, how can we solve the dispute/edit warring on the Ben Shapiro page. I watch his show everyday, and he does come off as someone who is highly hawkish in foreign policy. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) @Fierysunset: Find independent reliable sources that say so. That's the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Don't waste time telling me that the sky is blue or 2+2=4 without proof. Find a reliable source unconnected with the subject that says so. Wikipedia does not care about truth so please quit telling us about what you think is true. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like your condescending attitude. It makes me regain hope in Wikipedia after being the center of a dispute. Also, I found the sources and put them on the page. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Since being topic banned, you have only edited in the area from which you are banned. If you want to take up editing other areas and are prepared to commit to abiding by your ban, come back to AE and request that this be lifted. GoldenRing (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

GoldenRing blocked the wrong user. I was the one reporting Wickey-nl for violating his topic ban, as you can see here. Instead of blocking him, he blocked me! Is this a kind of bad joke or just a silly mistake? DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

DarkKing's statements are entirely accurate; the block was placed by mistake and has now been lifted. Yamla (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: DarkKing's statement appears accurate to me. I took a look at the AE request and it does seem to me like you hit the block button on the wrong user. Am I mistaken? --Yamla (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God, I'm so sorry. Please accept my abject apologies for being an utter idiot. GoldenRing (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone your block and blocked the correct editor. I'm really sorry that, as far as I know, there's nothing to be done about what was a clean block log. GoldenRing (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, your block log clearly shows the block was undone and was placed by mistake, so nobody will be confused. Everyone will know you have always been an editor in good standing. --Yamla (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Innocent mistakes are part of life. Don't worry about it.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 02:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?[edit]

"No, you need reliable sources in THOSE ARTICLES stating they are part of the alt-right, which is false. Some of them are even despised by the alt-right. Obviously you have an Wikipedia:AGENDA" I'd like it if you'd cease the false accusations. I have no agenda. I am trying to create a more complete footer box and a standard of consistency. I am open to reaching a consensus, but there really is no consensus right now, with you pushing your opinion and the bulk of other editors pushing another view.

For individuals, reliable sources ARE in those articles. Go look a few of them up: Lauren Southern, James Allsup, Jason Kessler.
The status quo at the moment already seems to be that 'alt-lite' individuals will be included in the footer box on the grounds that there are dozens of reliable sources that describe them, rightly or wrongly in your opinion, as alt-right. If we are just going by who white nationalists dislike, why are Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich and Paul Joseph Watson *currently* in the footer box? Secondly, several of the individuals I added, like Kessler, MacDonald, Taylor, and Anglin, are not hated by white nationalists.
As for the 'ideas' section, what you have suggested is impractical and also deeply inconsistent with the status quo. For example, antisemitism, which is currently in the footer box, has no reference whatsoever to the alt-right. The only reference to the alt-right on the white supremacy page is an unsourced mention of it in the 'See also' section. We can go along with your plan if you want, but we'd have to either cut the current footer box in half content-wise, or add references which may not meet notability standards on other pages. It makes a lot more sense for the ideas section to just go along with what ideas are listed with reliable sources on the alt-right page.

--Jay942942 (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you edit my semetic inclusion.Here are the original semetic people. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=semetic+people&oq=semetic+people&aqs=chrome..69i57.4950j0j4&client=tablet-android-samsung&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=Mu6igrO3h4SlXM: I know semetic, generally, only seems to apply to being Jewish / Hebraic people, but in a historical context this is plainly wrong.I was trying to make people aware of a common misconception.This may or may not have a purposely political re-alignment of historical context behind it.As Wikipedia is apolitical I thought it was right to mention this apparent oversight in the article.Don't really understand why anti-semetic came to replace anti-Jewish in the first place.When it was first used it most definately has a context of including all semetic speaking people, in academic circles at least Scratchy7929 06:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people Scratchy7929 07:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

It mentions in the Wikipedia article that the semetic people is now obsolete terminology outside linguistics.If it is not considered obsolete, which rather goes against what the semetic people wikipedia article says, it is no longer seemingly used to describe Arabic, Aramaic peoples.Hasn't that got a racial context against them (even if some Arabic & Araimic speaking people might prefer it stay that way) & thus not being apolitical.It even mentions this point in the bottom of the article itself.I believe some reference should be made to the original meaning of semetic in the anti-semetic article to make it apolitical. Scratchy7929 07:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scratchy7929 (talk • contribs)

This is nothing to do with me.--Jay942942 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Shapiro podcast rank[edit]

Hi - be sure not to confuse "The Daily" (Nytimes) with "Daily Wire" (Ben Shapiro). I was briefly confused by this too. Ben's Podcast is listed as "The Ben Shapiro Show" – http://www.itunescharts.net/us/charts/podcasts/2017/08/09 - Thanks :) Jonathan Williams (talk) 17:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Please do not use edit summaries to make personal comments or attacks on other editors as you did on Linda Sarsour. It's inappropriate, uncivil and prohibited by policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Roscelese. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Haifa[edit]

The First Crusade ended in 1099. Haifa was captured by Vital I Michele during his unnamed Venetian crusade in 1100 or 1101 and handed it over to the Franks; then he went back to Venice. There's no article for this mini-crusade on Wikipedia (yet), but rest assured that no historian considers the capture of Haifa by the Venetians to be part of the First Crusade. Thomas Madden himself categorizes it among "the crusades of 1100-1101". Blue Danube (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I'm sorry.--DarkKing Rayleigh (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Hi DarkKing Rayleigh. I have opened a report at ANI regarding the disruption caused by Mhhossein. Dr. K. 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]