User talk:Darkness Shines/Archive 8

HDFC RED Speedy Deletion Contest

This project deserves to be on Wikipedia as it meets the norm i.e. notability (the HDFC brand is important to people and real estate is a very important aspect of the people of India. Therefore this is information should be available to the people). It also is written with keeping a neutral point of view (the article does not promote any content about the brand but just provides details about the brand which might actually be helpful to people who are looking for help in this sector)in mind and the content added is verifiable (the content mentioned on the page has been verified from national press).

Please note that the website has unique features that make it more useful for users like me.

Any instances of promotion can be notified of but the article as a whole deserves to be present on Wikipedia.

Gaurav.jhala88 (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Concern about International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) article

Dear Shines, would you please check the article International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)? Here two active editors are trying to bias the article. They fill up more than half of the introduction with tribunal justice's email and skype conversation hacking. It is not very important incident in the whole trial process. But they are tiring to impose a negative impression to this article. Their main objective is using this article for anti tribunal propaganda. I told them to enlist all the criticism under the topics criticism, but they don't do that. They put every criticism in the introduction. Would you please help me to teach wiki terms and conditions to neutralize this type of biased article?--Freemesm (talk) 11:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been trying, the main culprit just ignores me, he thinks my intellect is not up to the job you see. It is a serious problem though, and I feel certain there is a COI going on as well. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Inter-Services Intelligence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militants (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Warring - Boise Kimber

Stop the other guy. His post on this man is unfair. He has published only negative stuff, completely ignoring the positive.Zimapr (talk) 13:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Zimapr

Please calm down

Throwing out a F-bomb and telling folks to take a hike arn't helping your case on WP:ANI. Please calm down before hitting the submit button. It's affecting your reasoning because you missed the copyright exemption to WP:EW in your response to nableezy.--v/r - TP 17:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I did not miss it at all, he knows BLP and copyvio are exepmtions, he is just stiring the pot. Which is why I am ignoring him now. But thanks tom. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Sepsis II

FYI User:Sepsis II has already been issued the ARBPIA warning atleast three times. He just blanks the parts of his talk page that he doesn't like. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the ANI request. I'll be lying if I say that I don't think that Sepsis deserved a block, but that not what I hoped to achieve. My hope was that some uninvolved third part on the board, could nudge him to play with the rest of us.--Mor2 (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling he does not like to play with us Zionists He got blocked for the 1RR breach, not over what you did, don't sweat it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

message

The message you posted.

It is forbidden to post, backed with a serious and reliable source, an information that show the widespread looting by rebels forces in the city of Aleppo? You can check the article and look if I have not respected the facts in it. But I am pretty sure this is not forbidden to use an article to describe a fact, even if it is a bad situation. --Robinogall (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was. I said it needed to be written in a neutral manner. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would I need a rewrite? I can hardly make a looting situation look not bad. --Robinogall (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

If yoor going to be here a while you will get used to it, also read WP:INDENT. Look at what you have written and ask yourself, how can this be improved. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

White Terror Dispute

I have filed a complaint on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard re the White Terror article.cwmacdougall 23:24, 5 November 2012

Why the hell is this never getting archived, maybe now it will. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Careful

Sometimes I revert because the editors who make the edits aren't genuine editors. It looks like our friend Robinogall was the notorious "anti-imperialist, pro-assad" sockmaster ChronicalUsual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive

Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

State of Palestine

Please take a look at User_talk:Japinderum#ARBPIA_notice. Japinderum (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism

Hello,

There is a persistent vandal trying to delete a specific segment in Iranian Space Agency article. I went over the history, and it appears he/she has been trying to push his POV for the past 2 years at least, deleting sources. The user with name variation of Scythian77/The Scythian/Rahba, etc? has also had arguments with other editors on article talk page and else where, but still persists in his deletion. Please see this for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Space.com_claim_that_Iran_plans_moon_program

I would be very obliged if you could solve this problem and stop this user's annoying and long term negative behavior. Thank you. --99.254.188.169 (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks alot for your help. I will stop editing. --99.254.188.169 (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Am leaving comments on everything on the talk page of Friedman. Besides the fact that page should be removed, its uterrly terribly sourced and am cleaning it up. Tellyuer1 (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, what you are doing is attacking a BLP through a Wikipedia. That just happens to be against the rules around here. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

actually no - the vatican, tony blair and america said the conference was beyond the pale of acceptable. That wouldnt be against rules of Wiki to state what the world is saying. Or perhaps we should cite that Charlie Manson is misunderstood and some follow him. Tellyuer1 (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your right of course, so run along and nominate Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA

Hey, DS, I mean this in the most constructive way possible, but your RfA is going to embarrass you the longer you leave it up. Please consider what Newyorkbrad said and withdraw. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a hard man to embarrass my friend, I knew it would fail as people here are so focused on minute and not hard facts, feel free to pull it if you want, I am not fussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I am permitted to pull it. I think only you or a bureaucrat can do that. It may get closed as a snow fail.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Friend...

Do yourself a favor, go off-wiki for a day, read a book, have some tea, watch a good tv show or something. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I think I shall just pass out ion a bit ) BTW thanks for the neutral, best vote I had . Bad way to make a point I know, but ten bucks to the penny my 3k edits to mainspace are better than a great many editors around here. Happy new year to you and the 100 odd people who for some strange reason watch my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

RFA close

I've gone ahead and closed your RFA per WP:SNOW. I know it's the holidays and you're enjoying yourself, so please come back tomorrow refreshed and we'll just pretend like this never happened. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Happy New year.  MehrajMir (Talk) 05:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

You are using inaccurate sources and false information. You are concerned with something other than the truth. The source you use isnt even accurate for what you want to say. Joeyrichardchicago (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You are a sockpuppet and all your edits will be reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Pilsudski

You reverted my edits with about a dozen source references on Polish dictator Pilsudski, motivating your reverts (among other things) by insisting that the source citations should include only a small amount of the source text.

Note that most of about a dozen references in question include a quote of a single sentence (or less) of the referenced text. There is no way to include a smaller amount of text in a meaningful way on Wikipedia. Including a single sentence or less into a citation is a common Wikipedia practice (see other references/citations in the article on Pilsudski and other articles).

Note also that the text included into the citations in question is quoted from Google Books and the reference to Google Books is provided. The fact that the quoted text is already present online on Google Books should alleviate any copyright concerns.

Please do not remove the whole edit. If you see anything wrong with a certain reference or citation, please (a) preferably indicate it on the Talk page of the article and the reference/citation will be adjusted; or (b) alternatively, please remove only the reference/citation that you see wrong and let us know.

Removal of the whole edited section from the article based on the claim of improperly formatted references may constitute vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.124.204.194 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi 208.124.204.194, I am sympathetic to your edits at Józef Piłsudski‎. However, keep in mind that adding 11000 bits of information in a single edit is very unusual. If the fellow was verifiably a dictator this article should state so. However, getting involved in an edit war undermines your credibility and risks a block. How about adding the information in smaller increments? Tkuvho (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Also and sorry but rather drunk read WP:COPYVIOm have a good one Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Ma'an News - RSN

You might be interested in this discussion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ma.27an_News. But do stay calm. Tkuvho (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

Apparently patience isn't one of your virtues, DS. I'll give you a short time to restore the article to before your rewrite, the implementation of which launched a new edit-war on the article. If you don't, I will block you. Not a good way to start the new year. This is your only warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been spared a choice between restoration and a block as Aminul802 restored the article. The article is now locked to afford editors an opportunity to continue the discussion about the content that was started earlier (by you, to your credit).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, was out for a bit and only just got back. I would have self reverted with the threat of blocking you know. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you, but you do need to control some of your impulses, although I have a sense that you like giving in to them. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion required for Mohammed Nizamul Huq's article

This article is full of blame instead of having useful information. Would you please tell me, what to do?--Freemesm (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have stubbed it as it was essentially a hit piece. I am going to post on the WP:BLPN board to gain further input as I fully expect to be reverted. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree

It was not a valid comment as it is related to the ip's own editing activities at India and weapons of mass destruction and Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction, where it is being discussed and a solution is being worked on. That comment was removed by me as it had absolutely nothing to do with Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction and hence did not belong in its talk page. You could have checked with me before reverting my edit. Anyways, --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

It was an entirely valid comment, and if you are already in dispute with that IP you most certainly should not be removing his comments at all. You most certainly know this already, so why do it? All you will accomplish is an escalation of hostility. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And a quickj look at your contributions shows you reverted the IP hereMy revert of you as it is unsourced. Please be more careful in future as removing unsourced content is entirely within policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in no dispute with any editor. That comment was not a valid comment and was not required at that place. As for your second revert, i am going to revert your edit to that page. Perhaps you should have considered that i am working on that page, and will add more inline citations in future. Perhaps you can improve the encyclopedia by finding and adding citations instead of inhibiting my work. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do not be a dick OK. Your wrote above you have a content dispute with the IP. You reverted the valid removal of unsourced content based on you working on the article. get real. RV me, you will be reverted per policy. You will of course be more than welcome to restore the content once you have sources. Till then, do not. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no content dispute. I never said i was in one! I was mediating on an issue on which the ip editor seems to have gotten stuck. Hence i went through his other edits, and removed one of his pleas on another article's talk page,, as they did not serve any single purpose there, and that is not how the talk page is supposed to be used. You reverted it, and that is fine with me. But then you went through my contributions, and instead of seeing that i have a long history of contributing to the article in which you reverted, you went ahead and did what you want. Fine with me.

Just saw your failed RfA. And they are right, you have practically no experience on the article space. Perhaps that is the reason for your behavior. I hope you start spending more time in actually editing and improving articles, than spending a majority of your time in other endeavors. I am saying this cz when i went to see what kind of editor you are by going through your edits and trying to find article contributions, i found them to be pretty invisible. :P

I guess that is why i needed a long break from here - cz of dicks like you, who will cite rules and policies but do little actual work, and also not let others do theirs. Anyways... --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, look again, as you made the same mistake as the last guy. My edits to mainspace are a case of quality. Quantity is not the issue. I tend to write stuff in userspace or on my desktop, so I get one edit for something which took weeks to write. I have various DYK and one GA all written by me, and am now trying for a FA, with an article written by me. Sorry you think I'm a dick for abiding by policy, but we all have to. Happy editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unlike you, i do take weeks to write stuff. As i did just now, incrementally improving the Para commando article which i was trying to work on. Found a ref, and added it. Changed the language. As it has been my experience, usually, if something is already existing on Wikipedia, it must have come from somewhere - some editor saw some website, and added that stuff on Wikipedia, and as usual, did not add any reference or citation. And that is what i just did there - find that website and cite it in the article. Please don't be in a hurry, as there are still tiles to be correctly added in the Wikipedia icon - they are not all in place! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been real nice and polite with you, which as you no doubt know is not what I am usually like. Look at me subpages, this for instance. Where do you think all that appeared from? Now fuck off like a good lad and do not piss me off further. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh did i hurt your feelings? You didn't do anyone, specially me, a favor, by being nice or polite. Last i checked, that is expected here on Wikipedia. If you do not want to be poked, kindly ask an editor the reason for his actions first, rather than the 'shoot and talk later' attitude you displayed to me today. Thanks for nothing! --Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

No you did not hurt my feelings, all you have done is piss me off, hence my saying "fuck off" now which part of fuck off do you not quite understand? I am as you know quite open, however I will not have someone come here bitching like a little girl because I acted within policy. Call me what you want, complain if I fucked up, but do not come here whining because you broke policy and I said you have to follow it. What you should have said from the get go was "you cunt, your right but I still think your a tosser" That or similar I would be fine with, not "I broke policy so your a dick" That is bullshit. So again. fuck off, do not post here unless you either follow policy, or accept policy and just want to vent. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

But this is exactly what i am sure you have not gotten through your thick skull - that i was working on and going through an article, and you reverted my changes midway. I finally correctly reverted them. You were not acting withing policy - you were acting like a dick. Still, if you act like a kid and level false accusations at me, in a discussion that i have initiated on your talk page, then i have every right to correct you. It is, of course, your choice to ignore intelligence, and carry on with your behavior. If you don't want me to correct you, then don't reply, or don't lie, or simply remove this discussion from your talk page!

You had not touched that article for two months, your sources are shite, read WP:SPS and look at the articles talk page you fuckwit. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I had not touched in fact any article for a long time, as i was on a break. I am coming out of it, dumb guy! Has any wikipedia inquiry labeled Bharat Rakshak as an SPS? Last i checked, 3 requests to label it as an SPS had been declined. So kindly link me to the place where it was labelled an SPS. I will wait for the link. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Read the about of the site you linked to. It is naught more that a fan site. Have you even looked at the fucking talk page? I gave a book source from fucking lancer which should cover most of the shitty fucking article. Your fucking welcome. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So, you don't have a link to a discussion that labels Bharat Rakshak as SPS. The arguments at the last SPS submission were refuted by the crat by observing that the site has an established editorial board, and is composed of retired three star officers of the indian armed forces. Requests to label it an SPS have been declined multiple times. You cannot unilaterally decide anything. Either get it labelled SPS or fuck off. I am going ahead and use it, along with the book reference. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not for 24hrs you won't. You are already on 3RR, I know you are not a fan of policy but perhaps you should follow that on. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Will see you then. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 19:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Rape data

Thanks for sharing the policy link. Was useful.

Think the UN data put there is well covered under the mentioned criteria: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge"

No specialized knowledge needed to compare numbers; there is no interpretive or analytic claim in the edit.

The data itself is part of a wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics. If the concern is addressed by referring to the wiki article instead of the UN link, thats doable too.

The important point is to highlight inter-country data to form a perspective Mave12 (talk) 17:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

So long as you use of for nothing else then that is fine. Do no add any commentry at all to the edit. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you agreeing with the edit? If yes, perhaps you roll back your revert yourself?Mave12 (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to revert me, I will double check it later. Happy editing and welcome. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we can simply state the statistic without the inferences. For example, we can state that during 2008-2010 in India the rate of rape remained 1.8 per 100,000 population. Whereas the rate was 24, 27.5 and 28.8 for the three years respectively for united kingdom, 29.8, 29.0 & 27.3 in USA and in Australia it was 93, 89 and 79.5 respectively.

I mean, there has got to be some way to convey this information it is important to put the Indian scenario into perspective. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Re:Welcome

Thank you for your welcome and helpful support. Very much appreciated.Take care and best wishes. Happy New Year.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 02:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I want you to take a look

Take a look into this edit. Watch the article if you can. Cheers, Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Aung San Suu Kyi: Using opinion pieces in a BLP

You said here [1]that "Opinion pieces may not be used for statements of fact in a BLP". Please present the relevant WP policy, or I'll revert your changes. Aminul802 (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually Op-Eds cannot be used for statements of fact anywhere, WP:NEWSORG let alone a BLP. Try reading the policy's please, I am fed up of fixing your mistakes. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

Discuss Changes before making them. Tellyuer1 (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

O the irony. Enjoy your next block. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Pilsudski

Please review the recent edits on Pilsudski implementing your suggestions regarding the WP:COPYVIO matters.

Reduced the quoted text in references to brief quotations to satisfy WP:COPYVIO . Please note that all quoted text can be found elsewhere on the Web at the links provided in references.

Please note the following Wikipedia policies explicitly allowing to use brief quotations of copyrighted text and the text that can be found elsewhere on the Web:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste

"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Use of copyrighted text must be in compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COPYVIO

"Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.86.42 (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

email

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Freemesm (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Replied. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check it again.--Freemesm (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I am more than happy to discuss the matter of the Iranian Space Agency, it's alleged lunar program, as well as the sources used, and I see compromise as the solution here. I also do not take to kindly to "wiki bullying". Just a note. The Scythian 21:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, and as soon as you have a source for the crap you are making up[2] you can add it to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

your clean up of Kashmir Conflict

I understand you are cleaning up the article. I am assuming good faith. But I would request, instead of 20 different edits, please make chunk-size edits (not too many, and not a big bang also). Right now you already have 5 edits (and thus 5 versions) for not even half of the section. It makes it difficult for others to verify your edits or make necessary changes if needed.Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am doing small edits as it is easier to compare versions, and check to see if my edit was correct. They all are, but feel free to double check. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

if you make 5 edits and i want to correct just the first one, I feel a little hesitant clicking that edit button, thinking I may ruin other intermediate edits as well :). Hence the request. About the edits being correct, anytime we make edits, don't we all always think they are correct, until someone else thinks otherwise? Won't you agree? :). BTW, haven't found any incorrect edits till now. Will keep looking Killbillsbrowser (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

How much longer should I wait?

Hi, DS should I carry out the proposed changes without getting hindered by the baseless objections seeing as how the objections are somewhat hollow and will probably going to stretch relentlessly forever? Should I succumb to the filibustering of KBB? Just how long should I have to wait before carrying out the proposed changes in order to avoid getting ruthlessly vilified by KBB, Mehrajmir, etc? Thank you for all that you are doing. BTW, this was a nice call. And I personally would like to applaud you for that. I will be more careful. FYI, there are other "non-HRVs" in that very article too. What about them? Would you be so kind as to weed them out or at least open a thread in the talk page? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to calm down and not get rattled. We need to trim the article first, then we should begin to add new information. There is no rush after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Then in that case, as DIREKTOR suggested, we can start by trimming and merging the contents of the sections that have at least one article spin-off (I am thinking about "Human rights abuses..." sections & articles). Yea, I agree there is no rush but I ain't got much time truly this time. And I would very much like to help in any way possible. Reply at your convenience. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Please Mr Darkness Shines, make your changes to the Kashmir page. I wanted to read about the foundation of the conflict, and what both sides claim are the reasons for it's escalation (I'm from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, and we have a large Kashmiri ex-pat community, which I wanted to better understand). What with Mr T trying to deny that Pakistan has funded or supported militants in Indian Kashmir (something everyone with a brain, and an ability to follow the news, knows must be true) or KBB or Mehra trying to remove witness statements that the Indian Military have behaved terribly towards the indigenous Moslem population (something equally well known to be true). The whole story is about how 2 countries, that want to be treated as civil and 1st world, by the rest of the world, can behave completely uncivily towards each other, and protest loudly to the world that (a) they're not and (b) the other is worse. The BBC, and pretty much every news agency has criticised either/both sides at one time or another, I just want to know what the accusations are, and what the best sources are that are claiming them (and yes, I do take what the ex-president of Pakistan or any other state, seriously). I also want to know who says what to counter those arguments. So please Mr Darkness Shines, take an unbiased butchers knife to the whole article please. (sibaz (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC))

Sorry, I had not noticed this. I have copied that entire article to userspace as it will be easier to try and fix the current issues without interruption. Once I have done that I will be asking the involved editors for their opinions and hopefully we will finally have a decent article on the subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:Rape_during_the_partition_of_India.
Message added 12:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unwanted edit war started by Aminul802

BLP vio took place in this article Ali Ahsan Mujahid. Which was done by Aminul802. He irrelevantly trying to put criticism of International Crimes Tribunal in this article. In another article, named International Crimes Tribunal Timeline Mr. Aminul802 added some tags without specifying any issue in talk page. I've undid all his edits. Would you please check this?--Freemesm (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Chester FC 11-12 squad

i see you've changed two players in 11-12 line up, but according to chester-city.co.uk booth and brownhill have more appearances than sarcevic and baynes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinklavier (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about, I do not edit football articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

this talk page refers to you - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:08jordancfc2, so i wrote a message here Martinklavier (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, all that is is a welcome note, I have never edited the article you refer to. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

[3]

no dude i just inserted a space in "217 kilometreDelaram–Zaranj Highway" so that it should look correct as "217 kilometre Delaram–Zaranj Highway" in [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Choonilal (talk • contribs) 05:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No you removed a huge chunk of information[5] by mistake. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rfc for Mohammed Nizamul Huq at BLPN

I'm expecting your comment here [[6]]. Mr. Aminu802 has reverted your optimized version and have some WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NEWSBLOG vio. I reverted it again to optimized version. Have I done anything wrong?--Freemesm (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No you have done nothing wrong, it would be nice if for once Aminu802 tried to get a consensus on an edit rather than engage in his usual edit war. That page is on my watchlist BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Again he and a newcomer reverted it. I cant tolerate it. I've undid those and report him to a moderator [7].--Freemesm (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He has reported me here [8]. What an Irony!--Freemesm (talk) 10:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Tgeairn's talk page.
Message added 22:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You are mentioned in this thread, just dropping a line in case you wish to respond. Cheers! Tgeairn (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Moshe Friedman

You are just bullying. Followed all your rules. Provide explanation rather than blanket edits. Tellyuer1 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 100年後

Hello Darkness Shines. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 100年後, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to albums. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Second thought

Maybe we can create something like 2013 India-Pakistan border clashes or something similar.The event now seems big enough with the COAS of India threatening a retaliation followed by his deputy doing the same.There are even news of the Pakistani govt cancelling the leaves of its personnel and deployment of its forces along the border.Morever it has killed 2 people on each side.What do you say? maybe we could first start in the user page space and then move into the main space if necessary.Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 14:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this over the beheading of that Indian trooper? Seems to pass the GNG to me, go ahead and create it. Once you do I will help you fill it out. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Created a draft in my userspace.Feel free to edit it.Here are a few links that might help [9] [10] [11] [12] Cheers TheStrikeΣagle 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath

The source is well. The document has been published by the SWR broadcast who also have reviewed it. So this is a 2nd source. It has the review form the national television (Öffentlichrechtliche). The german article also contains this information, an it has been published by TV as well. The report showed a horrible failure of german justice. --Hans Haase (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Gustl Mollath again

Would you like to continue on my talk page, please. I explained what was going on and would like to hear from you. --Hans Haase (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for this one TheStrikeΣagle 02:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That guy is more than likely Nangparbat, I already asked sal to check both accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, The other IP seems from Australia.So I guess its not him. TheStrikeΣagle 02:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What IP? I meant both these accounts [13][14] Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

User:49.176.6.240.It was the one who actually started the discussion TheStrikeΣagle 02:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, he posted second, first post second post Darkness Shines (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah.Dont know how I missed such a silly one.hehe TheStrikeΣagle 02:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Razakar and Al-Shams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK

In case you don't know about it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done to you both, my few lines do not really count so you need not have added me. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You created the article! and your intro and the political reactions section prompted me to further expand the article TheStrikeΣagle 15:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Help!

I am trying to add information about Hafiz Saeed from this sources [15] [16] [17] [18] but have been unable to decide in which section it should be added.The information is vital.Which would you think would be the best section to add it? TheStrikeΣagle 16:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well as he was there before the attack then in the background section I reckon. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Why did you delete most of the text of the Ambrose Mendy article?

Hi

I noticed that most of the text of the Ambrose Mendy article has been erased. However, it's content seems to be accurate for the most part (unless other sites have it wrong too http://www.blackinbritain.com/AmbroseMendy.htm), and I wouldn't say the article reflected badly on him. Of course he did serve time in prison but to earn a few degrees while there is a triumph and an inspiration. I remember all too well the partnership of Ambrose Mendy and Nigel Benn and it's a shame that the guts of this article have been ripped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvshill (talk • contribs) 18:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed it as it was unsourced, please read WP:BLP Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you Darkness, I found your contribution helpful and informative, and it has enriched my life! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smugs999 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your welcome, enjoy your forthcoming block for trolling. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A Smoke Sock detector for you

	Hello Mr.Sock Detector
	You are brilliant when it comes to this. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers V 11:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 13:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Responded mate. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR

Just to let you know, you are over 3RR. In fact, if I take all reverts into account, you seem to be on 6RR. Mar4d (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been reported, please see [19]. Mar4d (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A question?

Is there any policy by which any admin can block a person who is not having the patience required to let the outcome of the RfC come? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 11:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT as that is what he is being. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I'm, as I said I would, looking at you. I was compiling my notes in the sandbox of that throw-away account when I mindlessly copy-edited that article. I'll move it onto my desktop. While I'm here, it's pretty obvious from what I've got there that you had edited before. Care to tell me what name you edited under, and whether you were under sanctions? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You think I am a sock? Based on my edits to the ICT article? That is just too funny. I have no other account, this is my first and I am not under any sanctions at all as yet. Who do you think I am then? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I think you're a returned editor. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, good luck with that. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not that bothered really about your precocious start. I will be bothered if I find a tendency to twist the encyclopedia away from NPOV but, though I haven't gone very far into your history, I haven't seen anything yet that troubles me aside from the British Muslims tend to gang rape people thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Non verifiable source on Ghulam Azam article

In Ghulam Azam article a source is provided, which is -- H. Evans in 'The Post-colonial States of South Asia:Democracy, Development and Identity', edited by A. Shastri and A. Wilson, Palgrave, 2001, p. 71.

Is it verifiable? Can I challenge it? can I have any suggestion from you?--Freemesm (talk) 15:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources do not have to be online, the book uses the alternate spelling for his name (Gholam). I can get a copy of the book in a few days and verify it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Freemesm (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation

here Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If someone would be so kind

To copy this over to the talk page of Maunus.

Maunus, please accept my apology for the unwarranted attack I made on you. Having had a bad couple of weeks I took my frustrations out on you, there is of course no excuse for it, but I was in a very bad frame of mind. I hope you can accept my apology. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I took no offense at all. I do understand that you were frustrated at the outcome of the ANI discussion, and that you felt slandered, and that the rules were applied unfairly. And I think that was a reasonable way to feel. I also want you to know that I for one did not mean to accuse you of being a racist, I dont know you at all and though I disagree with some of your editing I do not take that to mean you are a bad person. My reason for restoring what you saw as personal attacks was that I do believe that good faith critiques of behavior should be addressed with evidence instead of removed as personal attacks. Thanks for writing, and I hope you come back to editing soon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the feelings of hard working editor Darkness Shines who has contributed his work towards wikipedia in accordance to wiki-rules. I will not illustrate here the imposition of the double standards by especial editors who think of Personalpedia Rules rather than wikipedia. I also request him to resume editing again ignoring all negative things that are also a part of our life. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

So obvious [20] that it is painful. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As requested, and more

I have blocked for a week right now. Although this is not correct escalation process, it is equal to your previous NPA-based block. As I have noted in the block log, the length of this block MAY change based on the discussion in ANI. This is truly disappointing behaviour, especially as many wise individuals have asked you to review the argument from a completely different perspective (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

So I ask for a 12 hour block and you do this? You (Personal attack removed). I be done here. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Oi Mark Arsten

Donkey raping shit eater is "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material" not knob. Grow up. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove "knob", I just revdeleted the edit summaries. Someone else rpa'd "knob". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry man, my mistake. Happy editing in an enviroemnt were you can be called a racist and fuck all will be done, but you lose your temper and ask for a time our of 12 hours and get blocked for a week. And people wonder why I get fucking angry? What a shower of cunts. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Bet someone luuuuved doin' it though luck, bro Basket _Feudalist 21:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Call me old fashioned

But this looks a little duckey Blocked IP edit & shiny new account Darkness Shines (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like he's already blocked. But, shouldn't you be taking some time off DS. Good opportunity to wean yourself away from here, at least for a bit. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just poking my nose in to make sure you ain't broke anything RP The time off is a good thing, I was getting too involved and emotional. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ICT

Can you please revert back my edits to the reception section? cheers Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, your edit was a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Which bit of it? The quotations from Brad Adams/HRW? Don't think so Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was. I have restored a part of your edit which was not a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Reinstate this quote please: "| The trials against (...) the alleged war criminals are deeply problematic, riddled with questions about the independence and impartiality of the judges and fairness of the process." and "It has subsequently been critical of various aspects of the trials, including the reported harassment of lawyers representing the accused. Brad Adams, director of the Asia branch of Human Rights Watch, said" and "In a report published in February 2013, Human Rights Watch found that "glaring violations of fair trial standards" became apparent in the course of 2012." - there is no BLP violation here, and the sources are sound. If not, I shall do it myself and raise the issue of edit warring with the relevant admins. If you don't like the edits, you're free to ask for some sort of arbitration. Cheers Abbasfirnas887 (talk) 02:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

If you cannot see the BLP vio there then I question your competence. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Iranian Space Agency

In regard to Lunar program, Don't revert the change. Should I provide proof for the absence of something? You provide a SINGLE Iranian reference with a date. Sarmadys (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Not how it works, provide a source for the crap you are adding. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:ANI regarding Content Removal. The thread is "Iranian Space Agency".The discussion is about the topic Iranian Space Agency. Thank you. --Sarmadys (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 15:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheStrikeΣagle 15:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Citation for a topic with only youtube video as reference

For the topic - Ninja Senshi Tobikage, some description was added for episodes for which I only have non-copyright yet original youtube links. Could the change be reverted if I add the non-copyright links as citation. --Spartan vn (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry no, You Tube is not a reliable source, please review the WP:RS policy. You could try The anime encyclopedia: a guide to Japanese animation since 1917 or the www.animenewsnetwork.com as sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm thanks. I tried www.animenewsnetwork.com, will try the encyclopedia if I can get hold of it. I am afraid I won't be able to find any source. --Spartan vn (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the IMDB is reliable for tv shows, but you may need to ask at the RSN notice board about that, good luck. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Darkness Shines. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said on Mrt's talk page, both of you should be blocked for blatant violation of the 3RR rule (on an article that has discretionary sanctions on it to boot!). Do try to resolve this on the OR noticeboard. --regentspark (comment) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Feck of RP. neither off us broke 3rr. I am a tad hameerd now but am quite certain in his, BTEW I gavr another source . HAHA. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just clicked, he went to two admins, what a wanker. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Feck? Are you actually trying to be polite DS! --regentspark (comment) 22:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes you twat, have I told someone to fuck off yet? Hell I thought in the face of what I am looking at I was being quite nice,Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Would you care to explain?

You reverted an archiving by Seb az86556 [21] using the argument "Do not archive a discussion you are involved in". As Seb az86556 was not involved in the discussion he archieved, his actions were perfectly correct.Jeppiz (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you not seen his comments on ANI? He looks very involved to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole discussion at ANI started after he archived the discussion the first time.Jeppiz (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and he should not have repeated his mistake. Especially after the comments made on ANI. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Concerning this edit [22] - with one day of hindsight, I'd say you're absolutely right.Jeppiz (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahbashism_campaign

You are more than welcome to help with Ahbashism_campaign as Baboon43 (talk · contribs) keep on pushing his Al-Ahbash POVs on all the Al-Ahbash related pages. Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Thank you. McKhan (talk)

Hi, Thanks for your message. I am still learning how to reference what I edited in Amrullah Saleh's profile. I should be able to reference everything I edit in the next hour. Thanks for the flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afghanfuture (talk • contribs) 21:29, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Killing of Travis Alexander

Thanks for cooling things off with that page move. All the best, Miniapolis 21:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of International System of Units

Hi Darkness Shines,

You recently undid changes that I made to the article International System of Units. On teh surface it might appear to have been the rightthing to do, but I was being hassled by what I believe to be a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. If you followed the argument in the article concerened, you would have noticed that it centered around how the term "Commonwealth" and that the annonymous multi-IP editor was the one causing the problems. My edits were to replace that term with "Former British Empire".

I request that you revert the changes that you made. Martinvl (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl is clearly on a mission in the metric system related articles, and is currently the subject of 3rr and ANI reports relating to this. He has a history of gaming and POV pushing - you only need to scroll through his talkpage to see the evidence of that. This tale of woe is actually a cover for his recent extremely bad faith actions. You might also consider reverting a similar edit (note too the summary!) he made to Metric system, which is also the subject of talkpage discussion. 212.183.140.33 (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Martinvl, Defacto uses TalkTalk as his ISP. The IP is using vodaphone. You need proof for accusations of sockpuppetry. Perhaps you should finish discussing before further reverts in the spirit of BRD. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines,

Talk Talk is a fixed-line internet system, Vodaphone is a mobile system. I cannot rule out that Father Christmas (or somebody else) recently gave him an i-Phone or some other mobile device. In any respect, this IP hopper has the same style as DeFacto and I had a guts-full of DeFacto's style. I again request that you reconsider and await the outcome of the ANI complaint. Martinvl (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi again,

This sequence of changes is significant:

1. User:Wing gundam "There are conflicting sources on the status of Liberia and Burma. Difficult to word this" (+20 bytes)
2. User:Martinvl "Reworded to put CIA report into perspective" (+13 bytes)
3. User:212.183.128.192 Change 1 - no comment, Change 2 "that is both moot and from a non-reliable source (a usenet internet forum)". (-295 bytes: Bold change)
4. User:Martinvl (undid previous change) "Please discus on talk page" (+465 bytes: Revert plus clarification)
5. User:212.183.128.236 "Usenet is not a reliable source" (-465 bytes: Not discuss)

At this stage, the IP-hopping editor should not have again removed the text concerned, but should have discussed it. This is his editing style, completely contrary to BRD. I trust that this is sufficient for you to reconsider and revert your changes. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Those are edits to a completely different article, Metric system, and the implications you make completely misrepresent the edit history of that article, why do you say they are significant here? 212.183.128.225 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Source evaluations

DS, When evaluating the weakness of a source, say in the article David Bergman (journalist)‎, you may want to look at all the sources that back up a fact. I'm not claiming that a blog is a strong source, but it is backed up by another stronger source. Also instead of blanking material, you could put a DUBIOUS template, if you think a fact is questionable, or a CITATION NEEDED template, if you think more references are needed for support. These are less extreme choices but reasonable as we try to improve the content. Looking at your past edit history, I think you might want to reevaluate whether your blanking strategy is appropriate and reasonable in so many situations. (I mean this in the most constructive sense of expression. Please don't read anything bad faith in my comments.) Best, Crtew (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion was faster than my ability to write the above message :D. That was fast. I'll give you some time to look at this reference now and decide to restore it or make some more reasonable editing decisions.Crtew (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This source[23] does not mention Sara Hossain, the only source which does is a blog. That is not usable for BLP information. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This source [24] makes the link clearer. It is after the next sentence as it references the relationship with all three, but you can set it off twice to make the connections clearer. In any case, you must now revert your own edit. Otherwise, I think you need to revert it and take this case to the Talk page if you disagree. I still think the above strategies (Dubious or Citation needed) are better suited to collective editing. I will check back in two days to make sure this was carried out. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you will find is that this source[25] will have been removed as well. User generated content is not RS, especially on a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The FACT template is still the more appropriate solution in this case and your inability to be flexible does not allow others to find the citations that you should request and thereby improve the article. I have NO problem with you questioning a source or two -- that's fantastic that you do this and I encourage you! My bone to pick is with your strategy of blanking material so that NO improvements can be made. Material is buried using this approach and nobody else gets the chance to add to/improve the content. You need to be reasonable and take this to the Talk page as I suggest. Crtew (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, you have just broken WP:3R (see history) and this will be reported soon if you don't take a more reasonable approach.Crtew (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I do not have a "strategy" and when you point me to the section of WP:BLP which says blogs and user generated content is suitable for use in a BLP I will self revert. There is nothing to discuss here, BLP policy is quite clear. I feel quite sure that I have not broken 3RR, what with only two reverts today on that article and the obvious BLP exemption from 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I'm no longer willing to use your talk page to discuss the matter and prefer open and transparent discussion. Please direct any further communication to me at the article talk page in question. I honestly look forward to a rational resolution of this matter. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please check out the better sources so that we can end this debate. Furthermore, after this is over, never, ever contact me about anything ever again. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to put me on any kind of noticeboard list. You must stop this immediately, take me off the list and leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to stalk me to a highly contentious article it is only right that I inform you that it is under arbitration enforcement. I inform quite a few people, it is no bigge. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

NO it is a very big deal. You need to leave me alone. This is a backlash. Do not address me or contact me or put me on any kind of listing. Why do you think my editing on this site is about YOU? Are you that egocentric? Get over yourself. I was there to explore a connection between Bergman and the article and I have every right to do that. You have crossed a line Buddy/ I feel intimidated by your actions and no longer safe in this environment. And I will not tolerate this. You need to cease and desist. Crtew (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My response to your "notification" is on my talk page for all to see. Please stop contacting me. We're through entirely. I will not acknowledge you anymore as all it brings is trouble. You can have your little serfdom and I'm not interested in any further editing in this wild frontier section of Wikipedia -- even commas. The end. Crtew (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2013 (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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "David Bergman (journalist)".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC) For the record Thanks for the offer DS, I'll report here each time I get a different IP address. Am I dreaming, or am I really self-imposing an edit ban because Bbb23 blocked me when I was dynamically assigned 212.183.140.33 by my ISP, on the assumption that I was the same editor who had received a 24-hour block for vandalism on 28 February 2010 (almost 3 years ago) whilst assigned that same IP address. And even though that same IP has been used several times almost every month since then. You've got to laugh, haven't you. 212.183.128.225 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Be careful with templates Hi. I noticed that the warning template about Arbcom discretionary sanction which you placed on some users' talk pages says 'this notice is given by an uninvolved administrator', which I understand you are not. After a little digging, I found out the template isn't restricted to use by admins, but non-admins should use the parameter |admin=no. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but take care when using templates that you have all the right arguments. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Were in the template does the |admin=no go? I have gotten this form of notification from an editor over the IP topics, it was the same as the one for this area. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I haven't the faintest idea. If a careful read of the template documentation doesn't tell you, I suggest trial-and-preview until it works. But you need to do it, or else you're impersonating an administrator. CarrieVS (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC) An admin told me that was the one to use. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Then I'm sure it is the right one to use, but you need to use it properly. CarrieVS (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Reading more, I'm actually a little confused about your use of this template. As far as I can work out, it is supposed to be a warning for users who have already misconducted themselves on the topic in question. But from some things you have said ([26]) I am concerned that you might be using it as a pre-emptive notice that sanctions may be enacted if the user is disruptive; the template documentation notes that "preemptive warnings are considered hostile". It also says that "the template should be accompanied by an individualised message", but you seem to be placing it on talk pages with no such message. CarrieVS (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Darkness Shines, you left a warning for User:Crtew at WP:ARBIPA. I am guessing that you were concerned about International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). Can you clarify exactly what the problem was with his editing that you feel merited a warning? Any diffs? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I left the warninf as he had edit warred BLP violations into the David Bergman article, Bergman is a blogger & journalist who is covering the ICT. I am of the opinion he stalked me to the ICT article as I had just done a few minor edits and he then turned up. After his lack of concern for BLP on the Bergman article I felt it necessary to let him know that this article is under arb sanctions. Carrie. I asked Sal which template to use, he told me this one. I am adding it in the exact same manner in which I got one regarding the IP conflict. I have only given it to editors who have editwarred, committed BLP violations, or are obvious SPA's & a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC) TO: EdJohnston and Carrie, This is a change of story on his part. At that point, we had ended our discussion on Bergman. That was a whole separate matter. In the end, I satisfied the requirements for a better source (see below for the end of this story). I followed the edit from Bergman to that page I was not aware of who was editing there and all I did was copy edit. He continues to turn a coincidence into WP:Bad Faith. I did nothing wrong at International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), and as you see above he can't seem to find anything beyond his vague feeling. Also I have every right to go there. I received no warnings while there. Tonight he and his friends (see the coordination in the section below) did an editing attack on David Bergman (journalist). Three editors all at once and pre-coordinated as the section below shows. I stopped editing once I realized what was going on. Based on all of these experiences (and the experiences others have shared with me), I'm going to report him at the admin site, if Carrie doesn't report him first. This is war editing from someone who has way too many rights in Wikipedia for the type of behavior he has been exhibiting. Crtew (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Hello Darkness Shines. I mentioned your name in a comment I left at User talk:CarrieVS#Thanx. When you start to issue Arbcom warning messages there are certain expectations created about your conduct. If it seems you aren't using due care to issue these messages corectly. You certainly haven't left enough documentation with your warnings to identify the behavior that you think justifies them. If you are using poor judgment when you issue warnings this might be reviewed at WP:Arbitration enforcement. In future you would be on safer ground if you ask uninvolved admins to issue these warnings instead of doing it yourself. An admin who gave out such warnings for no easily visible reason would also be in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC) DS. I'm removing the names you added. When you have issues with the editing behavior or any editor, please bring them to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. While there are sanctions on India and Pakistan articles in place, the intent of those sanctions is not to stifle discussion and, unfortunately, that is the main effect of undocumented behavioral warnings. --regentspark (comment) 22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC) Can my name be removed too? I was also illegitimately put on the list by DS Applesandapples (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Ed, were does one leave documentation? As I have said, I am following the same procedure as was given to me when I got templated over the IP thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC) In fact Ed you yourself said Arbcom has made clear that non-admins can issue notifications of discretionary santions Darkness Shines (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC) And no difference at all in the language used it the template you said was fine to have been used on me[27] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC) It is assumed that people who issue warnings know what they are doing. I don't see you as giving good rationales for the original warnings or having a plan in place to deal with disputes about the validity of the warnings. Any more turmoil of this kind is probably going to take us to one of the admin boards, possibly AE. At that time, the actions of whoever issued the warnings may be reviewed. Someone who is already involved in a topic area (such as yourself) may not be in the best position to judge whether others need to be warned using the language of {{uw-sanctions}}. That template says "continue to misconduct yourself", a harsh phrase that needs justification. If you are willing to reflect on recent events and take a break from issuing discretionary sanctions warnings this matter might go away. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC) In addition to what Ed pointed out ″This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator″ - is missing from the notice that was issued to you (unlike what you gave us). There you've the most blatant of the differences (I've not dug deep into the matter, hence there maybe other differences). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Ed. I will leave off for a bit and involve and admin next time if you think that is the best course of action, I will try and figure out were in the template the extra parameter needs to go. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 19 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Ahbash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abd-al-Wahhab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC) David Bergman (journalist) Hi Shines, in David Bergman (journalist)'s article is it ok to cite a bloggers blog as reference? A large part of this article is cited to that blog. Another point is in Works of journalism section an article written by him is given. I think it is a self promotional work. Another point is needed to add, that the War Crimes File documentary was removed by channel 4 for legal order from court.--Freemesm (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC) It i ok if the information is about himself yes. And what you removed were external links[28] Assuming the youtube link is to a legit C4 channel then in is not a linkvio so both of those can stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC) I can't see the Youtube link. That youtube channel does not belongs to channel 4 and this documentary was removed by channel 4 for legal order from court. If you think it can be there, then it is ok. But whats about Works of journalism? Here a link of his newspaper article linked directly. Is it ok?--Freemesm (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC) I remove the YouTube link as it was a linkvio. I have raised the matter of the Works of journalism on the talk page already. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC) You've got mail! Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Would you please check the urgent mail? Freemesm (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Sanctions notice Hi DS. My talk page is a bit of a mess so I'm replying here. It is not a good idea to sanction editors with whom you're having a dispute, even if you believe that they are editing disruptively. I've removed (apparently only some) names that you added, but feel free to ask any uninvolved admin to add them back if you think it necessary. But do try to make a good case. For example, I don't think Mrt is being disruptive (persistent, yes, but not disruptive) if this is only about the human rights in kashmir issue. Persistence and disruption are entirely different things. Bottom line, go to an uninvolved admin if you think you have a case. --regentspark (comment) 14:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC) The reason I added Mrt was not because of the never ending talk page discussion, it was for the edit warring, the second one he was in in the space of a few weeks which is under the sanctions. I am ot going to bother again, and the next time I have to file an AE case which is dismissed as the guy had not been given notification I can point to this fiasco. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Shahbag 2013 You have removed line about his party saying this is vendetta. You should not bias the article by removing the BBC reference which says this clearly.Snackathon (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC) You sure you want that in? I will reflect the source accurately. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC) yes,include.Snackathon (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry I was called out on an emergency and have been up all night. For the life of me I cannot see a BBC ref in here[29] Can you just give me the link please. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Notice Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Majority first, objectivity second? WTF? (read it patiently please). Thank you. v/r - TP 16:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC) It was unwarranted, I admit. Forget it, see this. I think I have managed to avert more dispute and a colossal waste of time. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Perfect! Beers all around.--v/r - TP 14:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Who is Nangparbat? You occasionally point to a banned user called Nangparbat while reverting IPs and alleged socks. It's not an issue, what intrigues me is how you're able to discern normal ip-vandals and sock from his socks. Could you enlighten me on this matter so that I too can distinguish his socks efficiently in future? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I have had to put up with him stalking me for ages. I am not going to point out behavioral stuff per BEANS. But his IP socks are easy to spot, he usually enters an edit war on the side of Pakistani editors, he is a big fan of Mar4d and TG and follows them around. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nangparbat for known IP ranges used. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC) That's it? What if somebody takes that claim as a personal accusation (WP:NPA) and decides to go to ANI; what should an editor do then? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Then you laugh. He has done that Ask Elockid, myself or Sal to look at the IP contributions. We usually spot him straight away. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Why is 82.132.238.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([30] & [31]) not blocked yet then? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 12:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Mobile network, pointless to block. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC) On your edit war and 3RR violation Your recent editing history at Hindu Taliban 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. No PA was made, this header is bull Hello, I'm Eduemoni. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Hindu Taliban that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I noticed that your temper is getting worse in Talk:Hindu Taliban. Please, stay calm and avoid using offensive words. Remember that Wikipedia is a civilized place and opinions are reached through consensus. Not by using weasel or offensive words. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 04:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Look I know you mean well, but do not alter my posts. It is against policy. Wikipedia is not censored. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC) BTW It tends to look like an edit war when a user follows you to an article for the sole purpose of reverting you, and does not even use the talk page. I never went over 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC) On the contrary, there was an instance when User:Hcobb made an analogy that involved the stereotype of Japanese tendencies to commit Seppuku on the F-22 talk page, and it was edited out. There is definitely a precedent for what Eduemoni did, although whether your language has crossed that line is a point that remains up for debate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostromantic (talk • contribs) Bollocks. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [32] Here's the link. Have a nice day. Cheers, Lostromantic (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) You are unable to tell the difference between a racist post and the word bollocks? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC) While saying "bollocks" isn't a personal attack, it isn't the most civil way of going about things, and doesn't really help collaborate with others. It's certainly low on the incivility totem pole, but I do think that refraining from using certain terms does help when disagreements arise. I'm not trying to gang up on you, and I'm not suggesting that something would/should come of using words that others disagree with, but there is some merit to be had in avoiding unnecessary drama; if everyone is whining about bollocks, that's less discussion dedicated to improving the article. It's not your fault, nor is it theirs, but it's still something that is distracting from the article improvement. If abstaining from using certain words in certain situations would fix that, I think Wikipedia itself would benefit. I'm not asking you to remove anything anyone finds offensive and never use words others disagree with again, but what I am asking, if you don't mind me asking, is just that you consider the reaction to your comments before you hit "Save page", and if you think it'll cause an undesired reaction that will distract from the discussion, that you just give it a second thought before saving, that's all. - SudoGhost 18:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Whilst your comments are fair enough I give short shrift to those whose only edits to an article are to revert me. I had never interacted with Lostromantic before, yet he appears on an article he has never edited for the sole purpose of reverting my remova lof crap which has no place in that article, the other guy, Scythian77 obviously stalked me to that article after he lost a content dispute on Iranian Space Agency. He has not even used the talk page. So when people act like that I tend to get a little annoyed. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Hi 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. There must be a misunderstanding. My intention was to restore well-referenced information, not socking.--Nok Sane (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC) No misunderstanding at all, you are an obvious sock of Jesse 8W. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC) How can you make such a ridiculous accusation? What is "obvious"? I don't care sock Jesse 8W, I only saw in the article's "view history" that a user removed well-referenced NPOV information and I wanted to recover it. That is all.--Nok Sane (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Ya right, my cash is on you being a new sock of AndresHerutJaim. Already reporting you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Who the hell is AndresHerutJaim? What is your problem?--Nok Sane (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2013 (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. Saffron Terror There was an extensive discussion on both the talk page and at WP:DRN; I had previously strongly supported the "alleged" version, but after hearing a lot of discussion, I also agreed it should be removed. At that point, only one editor was supporting the use of "alleged". Now, you're welcome to re-open the discussion since you weren't involved in the last one, but right now there seems to be a fairly strong consensus not to use the word "alleged". At this point, that's the status quot, and should remain in place until you can show that consensus has changed. I recommend you look at the rationale provided; as I said, I found it quite persuasive. There is probably more necessary work on the rest of the article to make it more clear that most things labelled "saffron terror" don't actually meet the definition, but that's a different matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I never used the word "alleged", I wrote it was a neo. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Perhaps it was unintentional, but the version you were switching to does contain that word. If you look at your diff, your version says, "Saffron terror[1] is a controversial neologism which is used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India,[2] allegedly inspired by Hindu nationalism". So, would I be correct in understanding that what you actually want is to keep the "neologism", but not the "allegedly"? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)r I am confused. I wrote that in myself "is a controversial neologism which is used to describe acts of Right-wing terrorism in India" and for the life of me cannot see "allegedly" But you are correct in that all I had wanted to add was that it is a neologism. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC) I am not going mad after all When you revert my first change you also removed allegedly.[33] I had not noticed that so when I reverted you it restored it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Ah, I see, so it was my error after all; I perhaps got confused about your change or the one before it...or just didn't read carefully. In any event, I'll re-add the word neologism, and not the allegedly part. Sorry for causing confusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Actually, though, as I was about to do it, I realized that it would still be wrong to add "neologism". That's because the article isn't about the "phrase" Saffron terror, it's about the acts described as Saffron terror. If you take a look at the items on Neologism#List of neologisms, and then look at the corresponding articles, you'll see that the lead sentence doesn't say "X is a neologism". For a recent example, see Lolcat, a word first attested to 2006. And there, too, it doesn't say neologism. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it is true that "Saffron terror" is a neologism, but that doesn't belong in the definition (lead sentence) of the article. This is no different than the fact that we don't say on Rice "Rice is a word which means..." or "Rice refers to..." So I don't think neologism belongs. If you re-add it, I'm not going to edit war to stop you, since arguably the "neologism" part is the status quo, but we'll have to discuss it then on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Allison DeFeo Hi, I added Allison DeFeo to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 3, but for some reason it is not showing correctly on the page. This is a puzzle, could you help? I'm not very experienced with the AFD templates. Thanks.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I think I got it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, for some reason it is still not showing in the Contents list of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 March 3. I added it in this edit and it all looked correct, but it is still not being displayed correctly, which is weird.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I cannot figure it our sorry. I think a bot will transclude it now it has been removed, if not you will have to ask another editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, as far as I could see it was all correct. It is a pity that there is not an AFD wizard tool rather than requiring the steps to be performed manually and separately.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC) There is, it is a part of twinkle. You can find it under gadgets in your user options. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Clarify Please clarify your point. What copy paste you are talking about? --Rossi101 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Rossi101 When you redirected 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict‎ to the riots article you copy and pasted the entire article across. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Hello there Hello Darkness, I'm still aware that you don't want me posting on your talk page, but I want to ask you something, why exactly are you reverting Lostromantic edits in Hindu Taliban? Are they trivial? Unsourced? Biased? I'll appreciate your reply, so thanks in advance and forgive me for invading your talk page. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Hey, sorry about last time you caught me on a bad day, I reverted Lostromantic because the content is not about "Hindu Taliban" it is about Hindutva and not the WP:NEO which the article purports to cover. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Good, good, apologies accepted, I was mean too, so I'm sorry for that but take care, don't stress yourself up too much, consider wikipedia as your safe haven. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓ 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Bangladesh Liberation War Well, this war started as a result of Bengali Nationalism, not due to religion! No doubt many hindus were killed, but it was not the basis of the war! So i think that this category is not best for it. Faizan (talk) 12:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Religion had a lot to do with it along with nationalism. See Women, War, and the Making of Bangladesh: Remembering 1971 p46. The cat is just fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Religion had nothing to do with Nationalism. Bengali Nationalism was against Two-Nation Theory! Even Pakistan was formed on the the name of religion, so Bengali Nationalism would obviously go against religion! Faizan (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Religion had a great deal to do with the war, it was not all about nationalism. Why do you think there was ethnic cleansing going on? The Hindus were systematically slaughtered? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC) I am talking about the basis of the war, the hindus were slaughtered no doubt, but this was not the basis of the war, and that category deals with those wars, which were based on religion or they started due to religion, Category:Religion-based civil wars is not appropriate! You should create a category or look for an existing one, which is suitable for the hindus killed! That's it. Faizan (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) The category is for wars which had a religious element, not just wars which were based on religion, and that is it. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC) They fought for Pakistan, but they were in East Pakistan. Faizan (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) So? Do a RM id you want to move the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC) ANI Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC) You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Your language and behaviour at AN/I is disruptive. Time to cool down. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request. Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Wikipedia is not censored there are no policy at all against swearing. My behaviour at ANI was not disruptive, if it was show me a diff. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Accept reason: I agree; one use of the so-called "F-bomb" does not make a post disruptive. That said, I think you'd be better off refraining from that kind of thing in the thread. It just doesn't help your case. Not an unblock condition or anything, just advice. Writ Keeper (t + c) 16:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I regard this edit as disruptive behaviour. You don't need to agree with me, but if you'll undertake to pursue the argument at AN/I more calmly I'll certainly unblock you. If you can reword your appeal abvove to indicate this I'll be happy to unblock. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Hahahaha in an edit summary is disruptive now? So no. If I want to swear I will, there are no policy against it. You have made a bad block and are now trying to get me to agree to something "you want" and only you before unblocking me. I will not be blackmailed. There are no grounds within policy for this block so just undo it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC) DS, as I'm sure you know from following the thread at ANI, I disagreed with the block. However, I think that Writ Keeper's advice is well-taken. You don't need to sprinkle your comments with words that are offensive to many to make your points. Before you click Save page, just reread what you've written and remove anything that doesn't bolster your position but just pleases your sense of colorful rhetoric. Don't think of it as censorship, just a little respect for others and good advocacy.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC) The diff shows a message which would likely exacerbate the situation, but I wouldn't go as far as calling it particularly disruptive. It's a bit much to block without warning if that is the only reason. I can understand the annoyance in the first sentence considering DS was pointing out an obvious inconsistency in what Mr T was saying about DS in the next sentence. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Cheers guys. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Merger I have found something here which seems to be pretty useful. Thank you for your kind help. McKhan (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Hello there² Hey Darkness, I hope you don't see me as a hypocrite, I'm being honest here, I do not devalue your efforts as a contributor, I sometimes misbehave, I talk to much and I'm too critic, sometimes I don't know about the subject but I give hints on it. I think it is the best way to refresh our behavior is to reinforce or create old/new friends. I'm stepping forward and I wanna be here for whatever you need me for. Also take my shining star as a symbol of the world I desire, it is not filled with stars and smiles, but I wish for it. Regards Hello Darkness Shines, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shining smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shining Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Why would I think you a hypocrite? You have every right to speak your mind. Thanks for the smiley star. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I hope your day gets better, because reading your answer made mine better. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I didn't have time to chime in before the ANI discussion closed. I second Eduemoni's thoughts, and I just want to say that I don't really see any POV-pushing from you--it's more the case that your editing style rubbed me the wrong way. The latter is a lot more bearable than the former, and given that you've pledged to work on getting better at Wikipedia, I'll be taking your words in good faith. Look forward to working with you on articles in the future. Thanks, Lostromantic (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I also take your promise to turn a new leaf on WP:Good Faith and it sounds good to hear. However, you know by now that I'm not one for promises, and I'll reserve my judgment for a later date when this promise is put into action. Crtew (talk) 09:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Hi All I was trying to edit was my signature, which was in the middle of a statement on the talk page. I don't know how the content you have mentioned was deleted. But thanks for the update. cheers.Parjorim (talk) 08:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Mar4d's userpage The image is listed on Commons as being CC by SA compliant as of 2009. I did check the source image on flickr and it is now all rights reserved, but from my understanding one can revoke CC after giving permission, but anyone who started using the image in a CC compliant fashion (as Commons does) may still use it under the license. Mar4d did not restore the image that was deleted on Commons that they had been using previously. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Not really my problem, the bot says " (Removing "Aerialshotlahore.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Martin H. because: Copyright violation: commons:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems/Archive_15#Watercolor121 + file dele...)" hence a copyvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, the bot removed a linked file. Even tho Mar4d's edit summary said 'Revert', he did in fact change the linked file to another entirely different free file on Commons. You can view the old redlink for the now deleted file in his page history. You can click the current pic and see that it is on Commons, and therefore free. If you feel that the images should not be included on Commons, then you need to take it up on Commons. You have been here long enough to be familiar with actually using page histories, and you have a huge contentious block log, so I'm considering that your understanding of policy may be lacking when compared to my own. Do not edit his page again without clear proof that the image is unfree. Regards, Syrthiss (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC) About the revert in Shahbag article Hi there! I just saw that you reverted my reverts in the Shahbag article. Well here is what Underlying lk added in the article: "Critics allege the trial wasn't fair, pointing to a series of leaked conversations between Mohammed Nizamul Huq, the former chairman of the tribunal, and a Bangladeshi human-rights lawyer named Ahmed Ziauddin, who according to the transcripts played a key role in the process, including helping to structure judgements and coordinating with the prosecution, despite having no formal position in the war-crimes tribunal. The lawyers for four of the accused, including Sayeedi's, filed for retrials after the tapes came to light, but the tribunal rejected the petitions." To me, this statement does not belong here, it could be added to ICT Bangladesh which is a separate article in wikipedia. To put this statement in the lead of Shahbag article is irrelevant and gives undue weight on ICT. If you notice the edits of Underlying lk you will find that, the edits were done systematically to include his point of view about ICT in this article. That is why I reverted it. Thanks. ..... Onimesh (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Opinion needed Hello, this is to notify you that discussion is being held at Talk:Razakars (Pakistan) for requested move, and I will be glad to receive your important opinion, hope that consensus is reached there! Faizan (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Citing TV news Hi DS, are there any policy about citing any TV news report on wikipedia, which are not available on web? I know, if they don't have any authorized youtube or other video channel, but the news is available in other account, then citing that video is linkvio.--FreemesM (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC) If it is not an offical channel run by a news company then it is a linkvio, give me the link so I can check it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC) See below Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DS, you have been very explicitly asked, more than once, by Crtew not to post on his talk page. And yet we get this which you could have simply ignored with no harm to anyone. Please don't ever post to Crtew's talk page again. If you have a notice that simply must be placed there (eg notifying of an AN/I discussion) then you can ask another editor to do it for you. Just to be really clear: continuing to post to another user's talk page after a distinct warning to stop can become disruptive and be grounds for a block. Stop, now please. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I thought everyone had turned over a new leaf, what a pile of bollocks that was then. But I suppose it is OK for him to turn up at articles I edit all the time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Take a look on Mahmudur Rahman Please take a look on Mahmudur Rahman article. A discussion is going on it's talk page Talk:Mahmudur Rahman. I have provided there sufficient reference to state that M.R. and his news paper is Pro BNP-Jamaat, but someone can't understand that!--FreemesM (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Please do not twist fact about the ownership of Arunachal Pradesh Since you mentioned vandalism, I don't need to explain its meaning. Arunachal Pradesh by most is a disputed area. I have reverted your changes. Thanks for your contribution in Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.128.60.150 (talk) 09:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC) It does not matter if it is a disputed area, it is an Indian state. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC) - I didn't realize that I was talking with a dictator. So it's up to you to dictate where an area belongs to? In an open knowledge sharing community, maybe you could learn to live with different opinions. At least 1.3 billion people in China believe that area is part of Tibet. And you think you could change anything by threatening me of terminating my editing rights? Where's the editor standing on a neutral ground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanzhourocks (talk • contribs) 09:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC) I do not care at all what 1.3 billion people in China believe. I only care about WP:V & WP:RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) - as if anybody give a thing about what you care at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanzhourocks (talk • contribs) 09:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker) I don't care either what Darkness Shines thinks, either (no offense intended, DS). But what I do care about is what our policies and guidelines state, and he's absolutely correct here. The relevant rule is that information must be verified by reliable sources. You must stop edit warring to introduce your unsourced changes to that article. I have semi-protected the article temporarily to hopefully stop the unsourced changes. Now, if you have some reliable sources that you think could be added to the article, please go to the article's talk page and discuss them. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Hello there, I've also noticed not only a vandal, but a sock-puppetry pattern in this case User:Ivanzhourocks, User:Thomascharels and User:Talentgirl Fang are all newly created accounts from the same time-spawn and they have the same target. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I also thought it like that Ivanzhourrocks and Talentgirl Fang were socks, but also thought there was a small possibility that they were just two people, maybe even meatpuppets, with the same opinion. Glad DS made the SPI. I've got the article on my watchlist now. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Razakars (Pakistan) Hi DS, I was just looking over the RM at Talk:Razakars (Pakistan)#Page title requested move and noticed your argument seems to be... well, incoherent. It would probably be helpful to the closing editor if you modified or struck it as you see fit. If this is a misunderstanding, I apologize. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Futanari Page I am currently attempting to prevent user Niabot from enforcing a biased version of this page that contains weasel words and needlessly graphic, poorly drawn images. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC) No, you are violating the 3RR rule and are going to get blocked for it. Wikipedia is not censored, if you wish to remove images you deem pornograpic then you need to get consensus for your actions. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC) He is doing so as well, and has for much longer than I have. And there's a difference between censorship and not including unneeded graphic images on an article of already questionable use. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The IP has also been reported for editwarring, not my problem. There is no excuse other than a blatant BLP violation to hit 11 reverts. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC) So him doing it is not your problem, but me doing it is? How does this make sense in any way? NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC) That is not what I wrote. It is not my problem as both of you are now on 12RR, you both will likely get blocked, I do not care one way or the other about the images in that article, only the disruption caused by the both of you.. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC) That image is far more disruptive than an edit war on a page that has little business being on this site to begin with. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Note that NotHelpingMatters has now been indef'd. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC) A good move, he was really not helping matters at all Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Khalistan Movement You can block me dude no issue but it is you who is vandalizing the things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.208.176 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Recent IP edits at WP:AE The IP whose edits you restored at AE seems to be using an open proxy. Please don't continue to back the IP until this is clarified. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC) >Ed. I do not care, everyone has the right to file an AE case. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) I have blocked the IP as a proxy by the bot who is charged with that task. People who are violating WP:SOCK to edit admin noticeboards don't have rights there. As the policy says, "The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust." A legitimate IP can edit at WP:AE with no problem, so long as the IP is not being used by a registered user to disguise his identity. A proxy is a pure disguise and has no excuse. EdJohnston (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC). Fix my statement. EdJohnston (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Then you had best hat my return of the IP at AE. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2013 (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. Thank you. Sign to archive Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Can I get your attention Please? Hi Shines, long time no talk with you. Could you please take a look on this article? I will be glad if you join to edit this article, as you have vast knowledge on this issue. Thanks in advance.--FreemesM (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Please discuss at Talk:Mukti Bahini before reverting my edits Faizan (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC) How about discussing after you got reverted? Read WP:BURDEN & WP:CONSENSUS. One of the sources you have used are about pro Pakistani militias, not the MB. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC) I am waiting for you to discuss! Discuss at talk the reference you are talking about, I have provided many sources, not a single only! Faizan (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Er,. I already did, right after the first revert. And already explained why you misrepresented one and the other fails on WP:PRIMARY. I will check the rest soon enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC) You did it after my msg, Anyway now continue there! Faizan (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Thank god for my trusty time machine. Starts section on talk page at 13:27, 30 March 2013. Your edit to this page 13:37, 30 March 2013 ten minutes later. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Where are you gone now? Please discuss at Article's talk. Faizan (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC) Fucking hell, I have posted there twice in the last few minutes. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) How is the above a personal attack!? I never seem to get it! TheStrikeΣagle 09:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Some people just like slapping templates on talk pages I guess Darkness Shines (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Islamic Green And now an editor is saying that Islamic Green has no relation with Green in Islam. Its getting too illogical, please help me. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he is in fact Irish, and sees 40 shades of green? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Blocked You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6.023 X 1023 years for abusing Autopatrolled tag and creating notable articles.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  TheStrikeΣagle 12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC) The Barbitration Committee has ordered for blocking you. If you wish to get unblocked...then place a request here.Thanks TheStrikeΣagle For the Barbitration committee 12:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC) So DS has been blocked for as much years as the number of atoms in 1 gram of hydrogen. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Well I needed a short break. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Is that any kind of joke? Where the discussion about block took place?--FreemesM (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Well...you missed a few points here.... You didn't notice the date! No one can be blocked for 6.023 X 1023 years! Nothing like Barbitration Committee exists User:Strike Eagle is not a member of any committee. Enjoy!! TheStrikeΣagle 12:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC) ha ha ha... --FreemesM (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Sources? Hi DS, the text that you deleted from this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukti_Bahini had a tag with it. I have several sources, but I was in process of searching for a better source when you deleted that section. Is there any other reason for your action? Onimesh (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Nope, just no sources. Glad you have found some. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Article notability notification Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Brad Adams, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "Brad Adams" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 12:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Michael & Me Hello. I just wanted to let you know I removed your reference to Teaching Social Issues with Film from the article on Michael & Me. As you can see from the publisher's own copy of the text on their website,[34] they copied the Wikipedia page and published it in their book. While I understand that you might be disappointed by this turn of events, it is a very common occurrence and experienced editors come across it on a daily basis. Basically, we can't use Wikipedia to cite Wikipedia, even if another outside source decides to publish the Wikipedia article. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or the relevant RS noticeboard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Where in your link does it say the author copied from Wikipedia? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Hi. I see you've been here since 2011, so maybe you haven't encountered the close paraphrasing/copyvio test before. I will briefly explain how this works, but my time is very limited at the moment. The link does not say "This author copied from Wikipedia", in those words, although they most certainly did. The text you attempted to source was written on Wikipedia many years before the source was published. This is called backwards copyvio. Have you heard of it before? Basically, here's how it works. An editor can identify text in a Wikipedia article that matches the text in a news story, website, or book. Our first reaction is to think there has been a copyright violation, so we decide to remove the text from the Wikipedia article. However, this is not always true. In cases of backwards copyvio (or copying minus the violation), the source takes the text from Wikipedia. In fact, that is what happened. The text you sourced to the 2009 book Teaching Social Issues With Film was actually written by Wikipedia editor User:Antonrojo on July 12, 2007.[35] I further predict that you will find additional copying from Wikipedia in that book. If this doesn't make sense to you, let me know. I realize this must seem odd if you are new to the concept, but believe me, it is very common! Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Congressman John Fleming and "The Onion Incident" Numerous editors have insisted reference to this article is inappropriate for a number of reasons, yet periodically it is replaced after being removed. If the overwhelming consensus is to remove it, why is it allowed? Politics555 (talk) 03:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Because whoever added it will wait a while then readd it, this is one of the problems with the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Remove it and explain on the talk page why you did. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Mohammed_Nizamul_Huq While I haven't removed the tag, there is clearly no consensus because there is barely any discussion on the merger. There isn't much point in leaving the tag on and it will need to go in a bit (unless there is more discussion). --regentspark (comment) 13:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I know that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Siachin Conflict Hello, thank you for the message. I think there's been a mistake with the references. I tried looking the refs up and I couldn't verify them - thats why I thought it might be a good idea to remove them. I'm not really looking into editing this further, just that the references are not as reliable as stated - strictly from the viewpoint of actually locating the information from the article. If you could help me find proper references that would be great - I'm currently reading into the topic and Indian history. 92.22.53.25 (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) I posted on your talk page, but will reiterate, just because you cannot access a source does not mean you can remove content. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Again see also reversals Kindly consider this revert. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC) While I agree that it is a relevant link in the see also section you pointed to a redirect, the correct article is Islamic terrorism. That page is on my watchlist BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I saw your edit. It's fine now. 13:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) your vandalism report Hello Darkness shines, I don´t want to bring this to too many places, because I´m not proud of my own behaviour, but the IP you reported is certainly this one , see my contrib here [36] . Thank you and take care. --Izadso (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I know, I got to those articles after I saw your post on Sal's talk page, did not take long to figure whose sock that IP was. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC) That was quick, thank you. Now what about the other IP that he used to spam watch the summary [37] . I got the order by Sal to ignore him and I will accept this. But all these Links to jewiki [38] are not even in the de-wp. --Izadso (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC) He just resets his router every time he gets caught, so I have asked for that website to be blacklisted. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Nomination of Human rights abuses in Kashmir for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Human rights abuses in Kashmir is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human rights abuses in Kashmir 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 notice from the top of the article. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC) What about the contents of Gilgit-Baltistan section in Human rights abuses in Kashmir? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC) See this edit by a strange newcomer whose first edit is to revert me on Human rights violations in Balochistan? One of the lines is hilarious, it reads: "Pakistan has repeatedly accused India, and occasionally the U.S., of supporting the Baluch rebels in order to destabilise the country claiming undeniable evidence which it failed to present. [..]The Obama administration's former Af-Pak envoy, Richard Holbrooke, said that while Pakistan had repeatedly shared its allegations with Washington, it had failed to provide any evidence to the United States that India was involved in separatist movements in Balochistan. The United States does not consider Pakistan's accusations against India credible." I didn't revert it BTW. It asserts that Brahamdagh Bugti in an interview stated he "would" accept (as in he is ready to accept it in future) aid from India, Afghanistan, and Iran which would help in the defence of Baluchistan. These are typical Pakistani conjectures. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 13:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Weird, I am sure I had already removed that for the very reasons you just stated. Mainly what Bugti had said in that interview. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking care of User:JantorAzeem. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Something about you at WP:ANI Don't ask me why they can't drop a template themselves. a13ean (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) He does not like me very much, I seem to have that effect on people, thats for the note but as ANI is on my watchlist I had seen his post. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I don't think you should be worried too much. I saw the report, pretty far-fetched this time. Maybe I will go and talk to him personally, hopefully he will listen to me. Not you, your stridency is what keeps your competence from being acknowledged by your opponents. Don't worry this pattern will go away sooner than you think ;). Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)  Closed. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 06:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Robert Cawthome I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Robert Cawthome, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome. Message added 18:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC) 109.173.98.64 Darkness, see admin Boing's talk page regarding IP 109. He's on yet another proxy server. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Already reported to AIV, boing can block the proxy when he gets online. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC) He just posted in this thread. Someone reverted it. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I know, I had like 6 edit conflicts because of it Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Linkvio re: the video that shows the suicide bomb that killed 41 at the mosque could you explain please what you mean by this. what is the linkvio involved here. it links to the video that the bbc journalist discusses so would be better kept imo, what is the problem? Sayerslle (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) The youtube channel is not an official BBC one, which means it is copyrighted content being shown on anothers youtube channel, that is a linkvio. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.Applesandapples (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Hindu Taliban [39] Take a look, Mar4d needs to be dealt with. Should we report him for his tendentiousness in India/Pakistan/Hindu/Muslim-related articles? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 10:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Be my guest. You're the one pushing the POV here and causing all the unneccessary edit wars. First on that article and now on Gilgit-Baltistan. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG as I have far too many diffs and links on your tendentiousness. Mar4d (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC) What is the issue with the cat? Catagories do not fall under WP:TERRORIST, and you misused rollback here Be more careful. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Killing of Travis Alexander Please see talk page of the disputeed article. It was agreed to use only neutral sources. You have beebn reverting edits without reading talk page. Geebee2 (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC) And what makes you think I have not been watching the talk page? I have been watching it for quite some time. To say ABC and CBS do not meet RS is a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Killing of_Travis_Alexander". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC) User talk:Seleucidis Hello! I'm asking you to apologize to Seleucidis, because you said he lies, but it was your mistake. Also can you tell how come you did such mistake? He clearly didn't register at 15th April. Was it because you really didn't want to solve it, you wanted to do it ASAP so you didn't think about it much or something else? I think these are things which have to be explained. It's "just" one hurted user. And this one user is very respectable person on pl.wiki, probably gave Wikipedia more than you gave, he's always polite. Even if he wouldn't be, you wouldn't make that mistake, it's still bad to say something about "time machine". Have you noticed that's just personal attack? This rule is not only about curse words. Even if you have reason, you can't attact him. And you hadn't reason. Thanks in advance, Herr Kriss (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Civility Barnstar For your impressive work during belligerent situations,Well deserved.! ---zeeyanwiki discutez 20:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Most surprising barnstar ever, thank you Darkness Shines (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Clan (video gaming) good faith I'd just like to say thanks for letting me know about my edit without citation on the Clan (video gaming) article. Thanks for assuming it was in good faith, as that was the case. This is because I'm new to contributing to Wikipedia, and wasn't sure of the exact policy. Thank you for letting me know, and I will not repeat my error in the future. Moony22 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) Ahbash Please don't give up on the Ahbash dispute. I know nothing about the topic, but was asked for a third opinion by one editor and since I hate seeing stalled progress on articles, I would feel guilty if I didn't help. But by the looks of it, you have experience with the discussion and I don't think I can mediate between the two parties on my own - it's time consuming and if a certain someone were willing to split mediation duty, it would help a lot. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have experience with the discussion, and it is enough to make my eyes bleed. I will take a look, but to be honest I am of the opinion that McKhan & Baboon need to leave that article alone for a good long time. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC) Campaign for "santorum" neologism DS, don't continue to edit war over the wording of the lead. Your statement that it "requires" an uninvolved admin to declare consensus is not true. If you want to raise the BLP issues you believe are involved, then take it to a noticeboard, but if you continue to battle in the article in defiance of the discussion on the talk page, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC) I cannot be blocked for following policy. Please read WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with attribution" This is a BLP and if you look at the talk page half the voters did not give any policy based reasons for this opinion to be stated as fact in Wikipedias voice. NOTAVOTE, hence my request for an uninvolved admin to decide on the consensus, which is how a contentious RFC is meant to be closed out. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC) More info needed Hi there, I've left you a message at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu requesting more information. Could you please take a look when you get a chance. Thanks. Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 00:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC) Barelvi ANI Discussion...sorry, I know it's stupid but it just never ends Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Hi DS Hi DS, can we rearrange this article alike this one?--FreemesM (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC) I suppose you can, I currently do not have the time though. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll try my best. I have an idea of creating a graphical presentation of this collapse like these [40] [41], which will present weaknesses of that building. I have little vector graphics experience in Inkscape. I'll never copy these news photos, but will recreate new unique one.--FreemesM (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu DS, don't write in the section reserved for admins and clerks. Even if you've done it in the past and no one has complained, it's wrong. I've moved your comments.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Fair enough, better make me a clerk or an admin then. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Even when you're hot-headed, you're entertaining. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Just so you know, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu/Archive Shabiha, Sunnibarelvi and Am Not New have been banned just like Child Start Grown Up and Trust on ALLAH, along with a two-week block for Msoamu. You were right, and thank you so much for handling that. You have no idea how much frustration these accounts caused me for six years, all over a subject which I wouldn't have known about were it not for Wikipedia. With which I have a hunch you can empathize. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you! I'm just trying to do a good job as an editor but I keep getting resistance from stubborn editors (such as HIAB). I want them to leave me alone which is why I don't participate in their drama. Most of them are "quoting rules" that don't apply or matter while violating guidelines themselves. I'm being judged as an IP who has been on Wikipedia as different IPs/accounts over the years (started editing in 2007) since I travel and move, etc. That is not sock puppetry as I was accused of. I also may have mistyped something on a talk page that is being taken out of context as I type fast and my keyboard misses some characters sometimes. At any rate, I am so annoyed with how editors (all listed on my talk page right now) are violating rules and nothing has been done about it. So as a smoke screen they "jump the gun" and report me. One is mad I won't update an article of his anymore or something silly. Or if I stand up for myself without being disrepectful, they challenge me as if jealous (without me assuming bad faith). If you look at the edits I make on talk pages, they are polite, friendly and supportive/encouraging. I know that is not the norm around here, but it's how I am. I feel I am being persecuted as a result. It's all very discouraging/frustrating! 99.129.112.89 (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I have no idea why you are thanking me, all I did was point out the obvious on ANI. I know IP editors often get a rough deal, have you not thought of creating an account? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I don't know, devil's advocate I guess. Gives no one the right to abuse IP users. Maybe I'm a lone editor wanting to change the way productive users are often mistreated and everyone actually practice what is preached or intended by Wikipedia rules/guidelines. Other than that I have my own personal reasons. But standing up for myself is not a violation, though some seem to think it was. Nonetheless, I appreciate your support, take care and best wishes! :) P.S. I thanked you because I have respect and etiquette (which I think pisses people off sometimes). Also thanks for seeing the truth... sometimes it's difficult to find allies on here (in particular ones who won't turn on you). 99.129.112.89 (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Two things, first read WP:INDENT Second, I piss everyone off here eventually, an end result of sticking to facts and NPOV Darkness Shines (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, but I already know about indenting. NOT a big deal, but the last back-and-forth I just had got out of order so I decided not to indent as it caused more problems. Just lazy and trying to get these typed up ASAP. Plus my keyboard is acting up and using that character is problematic at the moment... Also, I guess people who don't get their way will get mad, jealous or be stubborn. I have a couple of individuals currently causing me problems still, so I may have to seek your assistance again. Never know! :) P.S. It's raining outside. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC) User talk:Toa Nidhiki05 Will you do me a favor and let this person know to leave me alone? User talk:Toa Nidhiki05#Backoff Another angry person based on an old article I made changes/fixes to and advised of violations on the talk page (CCM). Not only that, he/she is assuming it's a "hit list" of people I will report. This is something I posted on my page and should remain due to recent events. He/she has reverted it twice, and I don't want it to turn out to be like HIAB. Talk about "hell in a bucket" today/lately... I will advise others involved in the last dispute if your help doesn't stop him/her from bothering me. P.S. It's clear they are trying to "hide" any attention about them and my grievance s with him/her. This nonsense is keeping me from being productive, I have to keep babysitting these disruptive users. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Gotta go with what Flo said, and I cannot recall the policy which covers such lists either, keep it off line along with any diffs you think you need. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC) My point is that specific person needs to leave me alone and removing it twice from my page is wrong and disruptive as it is someone from an old article who didn't get their way or didn't like me standing up for myself about poor sources within the article, so I need people to just let him/her know to back off my page and do something else. I don't need that person removing what they claim is a "hit list" off my talk page. That is a violation. Then they leave comments about how I'll get laughed out of a noticeboard dispute. Shocking how people act on here. So petty, which is also a policy... not trying to push a point, pester or cause distress. Not very civil of him/her. 99.129.112.89 (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Keep the list off wiki, not hard. Per WP:TPG you have the right to ask editors to refrain from posting to your talk page, if they do not and you feel they are harassing you then you take it to ANI. But like Flo just told you, and you said yourself above, a great many petty minded people will have a great time reverting you and watching you get blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC) ANI Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Talkback Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Faizan Al-Badri's talk page. Message added 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) +1 Message. Faizan -Let's talk! 08:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Regarding your edits on the Sarabjit Singh article... I've been following the Sarabjit Singh article since I came across it on the main page. After reading it originally I ended up editing some awkward grammar (likely an ESL editor, understandable that errors were made). As I have no strong opinions on India/Pakistan conflicts I thought I'd make an effort to help patrol neutrality. Anyway, when I saw your edit summary "09:50, 5 May 2013‎ Darkness Shines (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34,096 bytes) (-3,146)‎ . . (Take it to talk)" I assumed you were directing Faizan to an existing relevant talk entry. That you meant to imply that you had already 'took' it there. I was rather surprised that there was no entry relating to deletion of a complete subsection from a prominent article. Please remember— regardless of friction between you and User:Faizan Al-Badri[42][43] —that others are following the page. An entry on the talk page expounding a bit on why you decided the subsection had "nothing to do with this article" and was "pure coatrack" would be appreciated. Personally, I feel that it would have been a good idea to have 'taken it to talk' before reverting the revert, if not instead of. I've now come across this Nomination of Samandar Paar for deletion with your name on it. You seem to be taking quite an interest in User:Faizan's work. Please, don't let it stop you from remembering the rest of us. Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC) You're right, I should have taken it to talk before the revert, I got sidetracked. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Dude are you serious ? I actually wont bother keep at it but you are wasting your time. Breezeplushy (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC) It would help a little if I knew what you are on about. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Take a wild guess [44]. Breezeplushy (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Any reason in particular you are following my edits? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I wont reply any more just hope you stop acting like the world is following/against you after this report fails to prove anything. Breezeplushy (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Is that you Nang? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Comment: LOL, now everywhere, 'Al-Badri' is being seen. And That's why Al-Badri was reported mistakenly, as a SP. Faizan -Let's talk! 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC) February 2013 Greetings. My username is Skynet3001. I removed the content from Military budget of the People's Republic of China  because the information is from 2007 which is outdated and no longer relevant. If you feel that section should still be there, then please make the necessary changes. Otherwise, I feel it should be removed. Thanks! Skynet3001 (talk) 3:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Archive damn you. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC) RE 'edit war' My reasons for editing the UKIP that I stated to GimliDotNet " I purposely removed the said analysis because I felt it was outdated. UKIP gained 3.0% of the national vote in the 2010 General Election, this is relatively small in comparison to 23% in the last Local Elections and in recent national voting projections. As you can imagine the demographics and characteristics of the parties support will have changed considerably since 2011 when that analysis was published. The analysis was also lacking in impartiality IMO. " Surely that is justified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinenevercomes (talk • contribs) 19:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) It does not matter if it is justified. You need to use the talk page and get consensus for your edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for replying to me Darkness Shines however my posts on GlimDotNet's talk page have been ignored and they continue to revert my edits. Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC) You need to use the article talk page, not another editors, and Gimli should have told you that. Go Here click new section on the toolbar and make your case for your edit. You need to cite from reliable sources and policy, read the links I just posted on your talk page, and sorry for not having done that sooner. Do not revert anymore, you will get blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for pointing me in the right direction! Sunshinenevercomes (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Battle for Aleppo Facebook is not WP:RS Darkness Shines (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Well as you please, I do not want to break the rules I will continue to do everything exactly the rules of Wikipedia! nd then it is fair to remove all of Amendments that refer to this Up to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I have removed and deleted the comments of the IP. It is an IP sock of the banned user Deonis_2012 . Sopher99 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, now it looks like I am talking to myself Darkness Shines (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I will not make more changes using questionable source of news!37.54.253.175 (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC) hehehe..the thread looks rather funny.... Strike Σagle 02:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Well, everyone thought I was batshit crazy anyway Darkness Shines (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 A good revert! Good shout! Faizan -Let's talk! 10:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, but then again, I am rarely wrong lol Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) No comments. Faizan -Let's talk! 16:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Following your edits Would you allow me to follow your edits? It will help me to get links to AfDs and other articles (just like Premiership of Lal Bahadur Shastri which I found from your edits list). ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Just add my talk to your Watchlist! Faizan -Let's talk! 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I did that many weeks ago.... but that is not sufficient to get links to some of DS's discoveries. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Feel free my man, but prepare to see ANI a lot Darkness Shines (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Request for Permissions/Official Hounding Requests/Darkness Shines... Strike Σagle 16:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I have a good mind to create that page just for giggles Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC) And with 134 odd people watching this page perhaps I actually should lol. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Lol.. 134! That's great! Faizan -Let's talk! 16:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Most of them are admins who want to block me, still think it is great Can anyone tell me why I am not getting two notifications BTW? The OBOD is gone and now I have a facebook clone for notifications and a popup box? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC) OBOD was de-activated after the new system(google plus!!!) was brought.............however, there has been stiff opposition for removing OBOD and many demand to bring it back........I agree not having OBOD is bad..hehe Cheers, Strike Σagle 16:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Our secret is out Ha ha, yeah. Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MezzoMezzo. I know, I know. It's so hilarious I will almost be sad once it's over. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Its criminally funny. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah that's lunatic. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Called a sock by a sock. The irony, it burns. 14:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Warning Please keep eye's on this person's edits. This user tries to remove the sections about war crimes & convictions of the war criminals of 1971. Be careful about him... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Applesandapples I had noticed his penchant for doing that already. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Good contributes to potential superpowers Darkness Shines, I read several of your post on potential superpowers I quite agree with you, you bought up some really good points and I think it is valuable discussion on Brazil and Russia. Also there is a sockpuppet on the talkpages on the potential superpowers too, it is Mediolanum[45], Bocca[46] and Subtropical-man[47]. All one editor, same content, same push. Anyway thanks for your positive comments on the potential superpowers page.--198.55.104.229 (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Good Humor With compliments! Mootros (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, glad a comment of mine put a smile on your face. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC) I ask you sorry I was angry with the russian guy that offended me and with those russian that are trolling and isnsiting for Russia.The guy that wrote Russia offended europeans calling them in a racist way "slaves"He should be banned.It's really offensive.Russians are really aggressive.I promise you to do not threat anybody.You were right).You are a positive person).Thanks.151.40.59.151 (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC) You are a sockpuppet, stop posting here. Login to your account and request an unblock as I already asked you to do on your talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC) If you promise to behave and have really changed then request an unblock as Darkness suggested. Continuing down the path of Sock puppetry is not wise and there is no place for it here on Wikipedia! Ironically it could be you who is viewed to be "trolling" now.Antiochus the Great (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC) To be sure he neither gave the time to do it.He changed your article.151.40.120.19 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC) FFS, login to your fucking account and post an unblock. Stop socking. How many times do you need to be told this? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Fucking is offensive lower being of Usa.You closed article without a discussion and without leaving me the way to answer.You'll have bad publicity all over EU.Be sure.151.40.120.19 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC) You can respond on the talk page AFTER YOU POST AN UNBLOCK REQUEST AND IT IS GRANTED. And do you honestly think I give a shit about my "publicty in the EU"? WTF is that even meant to mean? Do not post here again, I have told you enough times what you need to do. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Yes you should be careful of your publicity in the EU... you might be in serious danger of actuallyimproving it Basket Feudalist 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Cheers, that has me chuckling. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Well I had to chuckle meself at your somewhat blunt and to the point edit summary earlier... it transcended the language barrier beautifully!!! Basket Feudalist 16:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 'via a proxy' Regarding this edit summary [48] would you care to explain on what grounds you have made the accusation that an editor was using a proxy account, and provide a link to the sockpuppet investigation you have initiated? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Why would I open an SPI? I reported the proxy at the appropriate place[49] Or do you think it just coincidence that an editor using a proxy just "happened by" so soon after my edit? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC) I have no idea how many people are watching the article - and in consequence I see no particular reason to assume that it is a sockpuppet of a registered editor. The material you restored is controversial, and it is unsurprising that your edit was reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. "Network sharing device or proxy server" - you've not even determined that it is a proxy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC) (ec)I never said at any time it was the sock of a registered editor. Although there are a few indeffed users who stalk me. But given I am correct in that it is a proxy, Zzuuzz is about to issue a rangeblock, I really am not seeing your problem here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC) "obviously a sock" [50]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, it obviously is, do me a favour and stop wasting my time here. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Good work! +1 msg on my talk. Faizan 12:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Why are you posting in this section? Start a new one next time please. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC) I will surely help build your archives. Faizan 12:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Go on then. I dares ya. I double-dog dares ya.Basket Feudalist 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Modi I have removed the POV tag, I have given my reasons on the talk page. -sarvajna (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Talkback message from Tito Dutta Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. Message added 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tito Dutta (contact) 17:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Talkback message from Tito Dutta Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. Message added 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tip When you are asking to talk at someone else's talk page, use "Talkback: other user talkpage" option, but, I personally use the third option "Talkback: other page" and copy paste the full page with section header like this: User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Question_on_copyright_and_fair_use HTH! Tito Dutta (contact) 18:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Barnstar Why thank you *blush*. Always happy to be of help, especially on new African content. Keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Not really Inappropriate warning removal as he had already been warned except he kept on reverting so it was inappropriate I hope you'd like to see the reply (I will maybe!) given to your comment and what happened right after that! — Abhishek  Talk 16:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC) You already warning him, didn't make him stop. — Abhishek  Talk 16:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC) So what? He had already been warned over 3RR, there was no need for you to run along and template him. And I see no further reverts in article space. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Oh really? So you mean to say, just because he was warned, it is ok for him to continue reverting and for someone not to warn him again for that? Great! Why don't you add a policy on this? As such you have acted wonderful in renaming this section! — Abhishek  Talk 17:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC) I often change section headers for my amusement. And if one warning did not work, what made you think two would? And he reverted after your templating, not before. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC) He reverted after your templating: His revert: 21:59, 17 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+578)‎ . . Narendra Modi ‎ (→‎2002 Gujarat violence: A. "Many" is imprecise word. B. Exclusion of sourced statistics makes it even less informative than what it was before. Numbers put perspective into things. C. "Godhra Train burning", in fact, is misleading people were burned.) My warning: 22:06, 17 May 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,824)‎ . . User talk:Mrt3366 ‎ (Warning: Edit warring on Narendra Modi‎. (TW)) I didn't know that 22:06 comes before 21:59. Most editors have stopped after receiving warnings from mutliple editors. So you make it look like, you are the only one having the right to warn someone and the only one giving appropriate warnings. Now that's condescending! — Abhishek  Talk 17:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC) If you would like me to be condescending I will be ore than happy to do so. BTW your warning 16:36, 17 May 2013 MrT last revert 16:29, 17 May 2013 Well fuck me, I was right, what a fucking shocker. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC) (talk page stalker)Please don't be croth itth vewwy vewwy hard thumtimes Basket Feudalist 17:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Wow, an Igor stalking my talk page, cool. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Hi there! I moved the merger proposal to Talk:Sarabjit Singh, which earlier was at Talk:Sanaullah Haq. Do you take issues with it? If yes then tell me I will self-revert. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Nope, that is fine. Twinkle did it that way for some reason. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Indophobia To a person not aware of the circumstances of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, it seems that it had to do with Indians' skin colour or European women. I clarified it for the casual reader so that they might not have to actually read that article to get the gist of the comment here. Also, the term Amritsar Massacre is disingenuous and I've used the more popular name of the incident, which is, rightly, also the title of the main article. Thanks for your check. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I will read up on it ASAP, but the wiki article says it was a crowd control exercise which turned into a slaughter. If so it actually has no place in the Indophobia article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Please read about it first. It was perpetrated by a known racist, Indophobic bigot (The Butcher of Amritsar), under orders from an Establishment (Michael O'Dwyer) with full knowledge and comprehension of his actions (as evidenced by his firing orders (shoot low) to some of his troops who fired into the air). Deliberately firing more than one thousand rounds into a crowd in an enclosed space without any provocation, or even warning is not crowd control at all. It was what the title says. A Massacre. It was so bad even the British Parliament had a hard time defending it, and Dyer was unceremoniously asked to resign. Of course, he was fêted by other bigots like Rudyard Kipling and several Lords, but that's beside the point. The point is that this was Indophobia in action on a horrific scale. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (ec)So I got curious and looked, my initial guess was correct and that incident had nothing to do with Indophobia, so I removed it as OR. If you have a source which says this was an indophobic action feel free to restore it, I will take a look myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC) On the contrary, the Butcher's motivations were certainly Indophobic, and he might even have truly believed he was 'protecting' white women. The Wikipedia article on Reginald Dyer says-- "A Thirteen Women Committee was constituted to present "the Saviour of the Punjab with the sword of honour and a purse." This single incident angered the Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore so much that he renounced his knighthood in protest. The Morning Post had supported Dyer’s action on grounds stating that the massacre was necessary to "Protect the honour of European Women." This "honour of European women" moral panic was tackled by E. M. Forster in his A Passage to India, which the line in the article you deleted referred to. The massacre by a delusional Indophobe (a General, no less) motivated authors to dispel these myths. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC) To say that the killings where Indophobia without a source violates WP:NOR, I am looking for a source, I suggest you do the same. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Nobody's saying here that the killings were Indophobic (although they may well have been). The original line says that it brought authors like Forster to write on the subject of racist stereotypes of Indians and dispel them. The Massacre's aftermath ('protecting the honour of European Women' award to the Butcher, etc) brought forth these anti-Indophobic novels. This is not the article about the Massacre itself. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, but from what I am looking at the killings had nothing to do with race and more to do with "respect my authoritah". Are the books written by Forster specifically written to dispel stereotypes? Do we have a source which says any of this? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC) The reference for the books was right there in the line, i.e., Ania Loomba's book Colonialism-postcolonialism. I quote from the Wikipedia article on Stereotypes of South Asians, "The stereotype of Indian males as dark-skinned rapists lusting after white English females was challenged by several novels such as E. M. Forster's A Passage to India (1924) and Paul Scott's The Jewel in the Crown (1966), both of which involve an Indian male being wrongly accused of raping an English female." Nothing further needs to be said. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I would recommend you actually read Colonialism-postcolonialism. It does not say what you seem to think it does, it certainly does not mention that Passage to India was written to refute racial stereotypes. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Touché! Another reference is Brenda Silver, Periphrasis, Power and Rape in A Passage To India. I'm disinclined to continue this fruitless debate. Good bye. 117.197.49.99 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC) P.S. Here's the Loomba reference you were looking for: [51] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.49.99 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I refer you to my previous response at 19:32, 18 May 2013, which I feel quite certain you had already seen given this response. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) British Pakistanis I think you have made a mistake, I quite clearly added a valid source on my second revert. Arain321 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC) No, you cited a document on Google Docs, which fails WP:SPS. I posted to the article talk page, please head on over there. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC) Issues I've revdel'ed a couple of edits and semi-protected your talk page for 6 hours. If you want that reversed or extended, just ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks Dennis. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Help me Any of my TPS know why twinkle has vanished as well as the editing toolbar? I can't edit without the toolbar :o( Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Vector skin is broken, see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Something.27s_wrong_again --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC) And fixed too! --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Cheers, I was ever so worried there, thought I had broken something Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Talk:Al-Qaeda please go to Talk:Al-Qaeda Peterzor (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Ok, see ya there. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC) You are misunderstanding person I'll have to talk to somebody in Wikipedia more important than you.I'm italian and you are defending a dangerous position.151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Hmm, nobody is more important than me. But as you are Italian, would you talk to a fellow Italian? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Italian can't be fellow.Remeber today western civilized world is born here.An italian has the same net wealth of an USA citizen and i could go on...Leon Panetta is italian (tell it to CIA).Therexbanner and others (like 103...) are propaganda men of FSB.They acted dirty even in lists of Gdps and other articles to boost Russian Federation image.Or you are with russians?I suggest you a not disruptive acting about it.151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Well that is most interesting, I have asked an Italian administrator to pop over here when he has a moment to chat to you, dunno how long he will be, feel free to check in tomorrow. And no to your question, I am Irish. Were bankrupt Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I love Ireland.I visited Dublin,Westport,Galway,Clifden,Killarney,Ring of Kerry and other places.I slept in Kilkenny castle.You live in a wonderful catholic state.151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks Irish Friend151.40.11.180 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC) No, I came from a wonderful country, do not get me started on the church and what it did to Ireland, you will not appreciate it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC) About Russia i agree for subsection.Russian Federation is already weak and next months with a bearish market we'll see her weakness.After World Football Championship (2018) Russia will have a sharp decline of output of oil and so of economy.Even if russian oil reserves are a secret of state people already know their size.So subsection at the moment is sufficient.I only fight russian propaganda.In my opinion the article written by Antiochus the Great was really the best one and the closest to reality (even i doubt about india too).The only 3 possible superpowers are USA,EU and China.I don't fight what can be true.I'm happy to tell this to an irish)151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Dear sweet god in heaven, look up the following. Gas prices, frakking, europe, russia. Then you may get an idea of world politics, the Russians have europe over a barrel, and are not even bothering to grease up first. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Russian Federation by 2020 will be in full decline because of oil reserves will decline and oil output too.I can cite you oil fields name by name.I know Russia better than Italy or EU.These 1st quarter they grew just 1.6% and inflaction is 7.2%.Ruble will devalue next months.Russia like Brazil (and may be India) won't ever be a superpower.Can i write my opinion and then you decide to close with subsection?151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Fuck me pink, "Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second-largest coal reserves, and the ninth-largest crude oil reserves" [52] The EU is a net importer of NG, they pay Russia for energy, read and learn. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I talked you about oil.Hydrogen in EU will start in 20's.What do you do with natural gas or coal?You write the rankings...i wrote you when they decline or end.If you deny we'll enter in other ways.It means you like russian propaganda.Let's agree for a subsection.Now i write my opinion.That's all.151.40.11.180 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC) What? Germany is currently building coal fired power plants in an attempt to gain some semblance of energy independence, it will not work, as they will need to build a great many more and their obligations to the greens will not allow that. You obviously have no idea of the energy security issues within the EU currently, nor within the projected next 50 years, so you can either go read and learn or bugger off. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC) At the moment Russia is 1/8 (the same size of Italy that shares nuclear weapons and has 62 millions people..for this Germany,Italy,UK or France alone could claim to be superpower like Russia) of EU economy as nominal GDP and 1/200 as global financial net wealth.Can you compare 1 with 200? About energy EU will move to green economy and Hydrogen.Russia is like a frog in aface of an ox.I agree with subsection and to close article not too slowly.This my last suggest.151.40.11.180 (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC) (in Italian) Mediolanum, io sono Salvio, l'amministratore di lingua italiana che Darkness Shines ha invitato qui. Ammetto di avere serie difficoltà a capire che cosa tu intenda e come vorresti cambiare l'articolo (a ciò aggiungendo che, tecnicamente, non potresti contribuire al sito, atteso che sei attualmente bloccato – sicché dovresti prima far rimuovere il blocco e poi riprendere queste discussioni). Quindi, facciamo a capirci: qual è il busillis? (in English) Mediolanum, I am Salvio, the Italian-speaking administrator who Darkness Shines pinged. I admit I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean and how you'd like to change the article (not to mention that, technically, you should not be editing Wikipedia, since you're currently blocked – you should first get your block lifted). So, basically, what is the busillis? Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Talkback message from Tito Dutta Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at RegentsPark's talk page. Message added 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Tito Dutta (contact) 21:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC) Keep an eye Keep a close eye on the article about Godhra Train Massacre and esp. User Soham321; he is on a deleting spree. You're better suited to handle inexperienced, seemingly disruptive editors who don't like listening to others. I am banking on you. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 07:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC) DYK for Women in Sierra Leone Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Global Vision Publishing Hi, Darkness Shines. I came to this a little late, but you might like to know I've added a comment at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Global Vision Publishing. I think your question was a good one. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Digvijaya Singh_(politician)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 04:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 2002 Gujarat violence Articles by Christopher Jaffrelot describe the riots and the violence. So does Edward Luce's 2010 book "In spite of The Gods", from which i will give you some tidbits about the violence and Modis alleged role. Hundreds of eye witness account describe police complicity in the violence. During the riots for example Modi came on television to say about the Godhra massacre that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" - which many commentators including Luce sees as giving the green light to the subsequent violence against Muslims. Hundreds of people including many women and children were dowsed in kerosene and burned by the mobs, women first raped. Perhaps a reason that the police have not taken testimonies from any of those witnesses and that the testimonies against Modi and many others have not been accepted in court. The rioters seemed to have access to electoral registers that register religion of individuals, since they singled out Muslim homes with extreme precision. They were even able to pinpoint Muslim owned strores that had used a Hindu businesspartner and Hindu storefront to avoid discrimination.(Luce 2010:159). IN the 2002 elections according to Luce (2010:172) "open hatred ahgainst muslims was the sole theme". 200 Muslims are detained under the terror laws for participating in the Godhra train burning. Not a single Hindu has been arrested under those laws for the Gujarat riots. 200,000 Muslims were made homeless by the riots, and went on to live in refugee camps - Modi called those camps "child manufactoring factories", playing on the streotype of Muslims having large familys (Luce 2010 246). The Supreme Court Investigative Team has been strongly criticized by academics like Jaffrelot for rejecting testimony of Muslims. In 2007 an investigative journalists published recordings of Hindu activists boasting of their own acts during the riots, and praising Modi for helping them and even for personally hiding some of them when they were sought by the police. The tapes have not been admitted as evidence by the SIT Investigation. The same individuals have even repeated the claims on record, but have not been accepted as evidence. During the violence the leader of the RSS Modis organization stated that "Let the Muslims understand that their safety lies with the goodwill of the majority". (Luce 2010:160-1). As for the tense relation between Sonia Gandhi of the Congress Party and Modi (who have called eachother "merchant of death" and "halfbred jersey cow" and "Italian bitch" respectively) is also interesting. After the violence Gandhi gave what is considered by many her best speech, in which she accused bthe BJP ministers of turning Gujarat into the land of Godse not of Gandhi. Nathuram Godse was a member of the RSS (Modi's hindu nationalist organization) who killed Mahatma Gandhi. This is just one book about the topic of communalist violence in Gujarat which I happen to have on my shelf. There are many others, and they tell very similar stories. The stories you will hear from most of the editors on the talk page is from blogs, opinion pieces in Indian news sources (which are apparently considered reliable for positive information but not negative in a crude misinterpretation of BLP policy (this[53] article for example is by the BJP minister and lawyer who defended the assassins of both Indira and Rajiv Gandhi, hardly an unbiased observer)) and from BJP/RSS websites like this[54], you will not find it in peer-reviewed journals published outside of India, and you will not find it in respectable news sources. A month ago I also hadnt heard of Modi, but once I started reading the sources and found out that basically the pages on Indian politics are run by the Indian equivalent of holocaust deniers I could not let the article alone anymore.68.9.182.96 (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Here are some links to more sources. This source[55] describes Modis television appearances during the riots, arguing that they were used byt the BJP for political purposes rather than for pacifying the rioters (This article makes a similar point [56]). This article [57] argues that Modi's goverment of Gujarat is autocratic and curbs free speech of academics. This article [58] analyses the 2007 BJP victory in Gujarat and the "moditva" phenomenon (an populist form of Hindu Nationalism centered around Modi and anti-Muslim sentiment combined with liberal economic policies) also mentioned in several other sources. This peer reviewed chapter [59] in this book [60] states outright that "The controversy around Modi arises from his personal and administrative support for the systematic killing of well over 2000 Muslims between March and May 2002, the investigation of which has been largely thwarted but which is basically beyond doubt." This article [61] calls the violence a pogrom (as do several of the other sources I have presented) and analyses how it was rationalised and motivated by the Hindutva ideology that sees Hindus as selfsacrificing victims. There are soooo many academic sources that treat this topic and Modi, yet the article relies on news paper pieces and cherry picks only irrelevant details about Modi and leaves out all of the stuff that actually makes him a signigicant character in India and beyond.68.9.182.96 (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I do not want to get involved in this discussion but Maunus let me tell you something more, it would be great if you do some more research, it was wrongly reported in the media that Modi quoted newton's third law of motion, I think it was reported in Times of India that modi quoted those words in an interview on Zee News, when SIT asked Zee News to give that video they were unable to provide one, later on it was found that Modi said that "There is some action taking place, let us not show some reaction. We neither want action nor reaction". A lot many Hindus were taken into preventive custody during the riots,many more killed in police firing. Show me one reference where Modi called Sonia an italian bitch apart from Luce's book as it is very apparent that it is filled with inaccuracies, there were many inquiries regarding the role of RSS in Gandhi's murder and none of them found any involvement of RSS. Lastly Gujarat has been home to many communal violence in past and if you look at any other violence in whole of India the conviction rate in 2002 cases is much higher. I am not providing you with any sources here as I have no intreset in having any kind of discussion which will not be helpful in developing our articles. Thanks -sarvajna (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Luce interviewed Modi and Gandhi several times, he is one of the worlds most respected journalists specializing in India, the book is published on a respected press. Maybe you should produce some sources that those statements are inaccurate instead of just claiming it like Yogesh always does when a source says something he doesnøt like. Then he usually finds some RSS/BJP blog or opinion column that supports his view and tries to make it seem as if he has actually supported his claim. If you dont wish to get involved in a discussion you should stay the fuck out of it, and otherwise you should bring some sources. It is complete disrespect for Wikipedia and for your fellow editors to respond to an array of more than ten sources with a flat contradiction. You should be blocked for your disruptive pov pushing, if wikipedia had any sense. But apparently it doesnt anymore.68.9.182.96 (talk) 12:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Here is an array of recent peerreviewed sources all of which report Modis quotation of Newton[62][63][64]. Here are some non-peerreviewed ones [65][66]. Here is the site where i believe Ratnakar gets his "information"[67] - a radical Hindu nationalist advocacy website.68.9.182.96 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) I have been reading up on him, obvious he is a nationalist, or pretends to be at any rate, definitely not a nice guy. And the article most certainly needs to reflect his complicity in the Gujarat pogram. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC) IP, instead of blustering, and wasting other people's time with claims which have been proven to be false, it may be better if you could get off your high horse and read the latest sources. The second instance of The Times of India quoting him on Newton's theory of action and reaction to justify the riots as a reaction to the Godhra train carnage was also found baseless. The State Information Department promptly issued a denial that Mr. Modi did not speak to The Times of India at all and the newspaper was forced to carry the denial, though deliberately in an obscure corner, the SIT said. Most of your problems seem to be because you seem to be unable to reconcile yourself with the latest developments and want to continue to live in the past, which was more to your liking.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC) I am sure "The Hindu" is a much more neutral and objective source regarding this topic than peer reviewed academic journals.68.9.182.96 (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Erm, if I am such a wanker and need to stay off your talk page what makes you think it is OK for you to comment over here? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Err, sorry Darkness, I guess I also forgot to exempt you from that message. 68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Dude, you didnt participate in that thread/pissing contest on my talkpage at all, why would you think that you were included in the message?68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC) I started the thread? Not that I am worried about being called a wanker, I get called far worse all the time, hell at times I am a total wanker Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC) [editconflict]Ah, I see. The very first (unsigned) post was yours, and we were having a conversation until certain problematic elements appeared to throw around some nonsense. You are welcome to post relevant posts to my talkpage anytime, and whether or not you are in fact a wanker I am happy to leave to your own conscience. ;)68.9.182.96 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) @ IP. If you think the name "The Hindu" implies that the paper has any RSS or BJP or Hindu leanings, you are only showing your ignorance. It is a well respected and neutral source. And is certainly better than your obsolete sources which are making false, baseless claims. I think I must excuse myself from any further participation here, I do not want to abuse DarknessShines' hospitality and patience. IP, if you want to continue this conversation, you are welcome to do so on my talk page, even when I am a "wanker" for you.OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Could you show me the policy that says that news articles are more reliable than peer reviewed articles in academic journals? Or that academic articles from 2012 are suddenly obsolete because of the publication of an Indian Court report contradicts some of their claims?68.9.182.96 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Source controversy Dear Darknesshines I have a question about this source [68] would this be enough for inclusion on the article? (check my edit on the train burning article) there seems to be a hell of allot of controversy of what really happened I think the other side of the story needs to be told to balance things out. Trikebarns (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Nang, how about you take the standered offer? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I have unreviewed a page you curated Hi, I'm Mrt3366. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Anti- Muslim pogroms in India, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 11:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC) What a shock, you nationalist prick. You should be ashamed, god bless your next hideous assault on innocents. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Your contributed article, Anti- Muslim pogroms in India If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Anti- Muslim pogroms in India. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Persecution_of_Muslims#India. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Persecution_of_Muslims#India – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page. If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)  Disagree And contested. Faizan 12:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Proposed deletion of War Against Rape The article War Against Rape has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. No search results at all. Being a inactive NGO enough for an article? While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons. You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Faizan 12:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC) WP:CIVIL Faizan 17:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC) You were wrong, and as this is my talk page, fuck off and admit it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Remove your personal attacking comment above, lest I report you. Faizan 17:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC) My talk page TG, my rules, fuck of till you can admit you are wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC) regarding notification Hey! How about clarifying why the notification is being posted? Check your posts, i have clarified it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC) You were notified per Sal's comments on the ANI thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Duh! I know. But others necessarily don't. That's what i have clarified in all your posts. Please clarify it if you are posting on more pages. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry mate, But I think that was the lot, did I miss anyone? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Me,but I neither need it nor want it. I already know and have said so in the ANI thread. My talk page is cluttered enough without statements of the bleeding obvious ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Went off the peeps mentioned by ya funnily enough, still wondering should I war RP for the crack Darkness Shines (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC) One day RP is going to find himself blocked for being sensible. It sometimes seems that people here can only take so much sense from someone before their brains fry and they start saying weird things. - Sitush (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) That is so flubber. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I kinda saw this coming. See this thread. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC) ANI 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. Faizan 13:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC) May 2013 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for personal attacks, again. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Block is purely punitive.Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Decline reason: DS, I kept EC'ing at AN, while trying to talk you away from the edge of the cliff, but gave up after a few times. I watched you put your foot even deeper and deeper in your mouth. It would have been easy to keep from getting blocked there, but you chose the other option. I like you DS and hold no malice against you, but you were wrong and instead of being upfront about it, you basically called him a nationalistic prick again, which is begging to be blocked and demonstrating that a block is the only way to prevent disruption. Declined. Go take a couple days off and come back and ask for an unblock then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 15:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Dennis, I did not call him a nationalist prick again, you are mistaken, I said calling him a prick was over the top, but that he is a nationalist.[69] So I did admit I was wrong. Cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC) It came across as a backhanded way of saying the same thing, so I can see why the block wasn't punitive. You could have been just blocked without discussion, the discussion was your opportunity to prevent the block, your chance to say "Ok, I was being a prick when I called him a prick. I won't do that again." I kept EC'ing, trying to talk you out of getting yourself blocked, but that comment is where I gave up, figuring nothing I could say would make a difference. On a personal note, when you get wound up, you are like an 8 day clock, wound tight and it will be a long time until you aren't. When you get it right, you get it right, and that is why I like you, but you have to learn to not take stuff personal and when to go have a tea and cool off instead of posting. You are your own worst enemy sometimes. I still recommend you use this time to gather your thoughts before requesting another unblock. Most days, Wikipedia is a much better place for you being here. Today just wasn't one of those days. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 16:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC) It came across the wrong way then And I was not being a prick, I was being an asshole. Catch you on the flip side. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)