User talk:Bright Darkness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

August 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:Arsenal F.C. squad without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. The removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serj Tankian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading (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) 10:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! Bright Darkness (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


Greetings Bright, perhaps I should mention that the national flags question on the Great War pages is a perennial. Numerous drive-bys occur when people try to put British colonial and Dominion symbols into the infobox (as if Australia for example was a sovereign state). British dominions weren't states until 1931 and so their citizens were British subjects, with British passports during the Great War. If that seems to be a quibble, note that Germany was a federal state so putting seperate flagicons in for India and New Zealand is not enough, there would need to be similar ones for Saxony and Bavaria etc. France and Belgium were also empires in which the metropole plundered the colonies for resources before and during the war, while excluding the Central Powers from their colonies. None of the Entente powers could have made the military effort they did if their colonies had self-determination. I would be grateful if you restored the imperial status of France and Belgium accordingly. PS notice that British, French and Belgian behaviour in their African colonies make the German devastation of the area behind the Somme they abandoned in 1917 look like a birthday present.Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I utterly agree with you here, French and Belgian colonies played a prominent role in the Allied war effort, notably in the Passchendaele battle. I have left France and Belgium in the infobox with links linking to their colonial empires' pages. I have judged (or perhaps misjudged) that describing them as French Empire or Belgian Empire would be noticeably confusing for the reader, as French Empire is linked with Napoleon, and Belgium were never an empire throughout their history, but a Kingdom. Ok, I have nothing with letting their links redirect towards their colonial empires, but I insist that on the infobox, they should be specified as France and Belgium, rather than French Empire and Belgian Empire. They oppose to the British Empire which is way more prominent. With kind regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The point for me is that they were all colonial empires and the infobox should show that. Plucky little Belgium had inherited Leopold's prototype for C20th genocide, kept the status quo and got lots of Africans killed I wouldn't think that people would confuse the Euro colonial empires with the Napoleonic (both) empires but if that is where the non-barred links go we could put a short comment in the infobox if you like? Nice to see someone take an interest anyway, thanks ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, I believe. To reduce the confusion possibility as well as guiding properly the readers towards the right article, a note/comment in the article seems appropriate here. Could you please take care of it, or should I ? Same for me, I'm really pleased to have this interesting discussion with a user sharing the same appeal for the Great War! Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd rather you had a try first because my Wikimojo is rather shaky, particularly with infoboxes.;O)Keith-264 (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I bow to the Wiki-fu of the Brightness ;O).Keith-264 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Keith, appreciated :D! Now that we have this tiny issue settled, I want to ask you (as you seem to be the most important contributor here) about a section in order to make the article better and more complete. The battle of Paschendaele, and especially the fact that its result has not been at all decisive and more perceived as a "useless slaughter", has inspired many people. For instance, the British heavy metal band Iron Maiden have recorded a song named Paschendaele on their Dance of Death album. The Swedish power metal band Sabaton (whose lyrics are very much oriented towards historical battles) have done this too with their song named The Price of a Mile on their album The Art of War. Furthermore, the Dutch death metal band God Dethroned (not my favorite genre at all, but whatever :O)) have produced an entire concept album about the battle, entitled Passiondale. Do you feel that it may be interesting to add a "legacy" section to have such information in it? Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I suspect that "most important" means "the sad git that's interested" ;O) I have mixed fellings about the legacy because so much of it is still distorted by revisionist polemic, which I approve of temperamentally but have serious doubts about historically. For me the legacy of the working-class war of 1914-1918 is the welfare state, so the writing that I do is a sort of love letter to the generations who built the institution (for its faults) which served me so well, at a time when the fascist pigs who run this country have finally assassinated it. I don't know any songs political enough for that.Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WW2 template[edit]

Hi Bright Darkness, I noticed your recent reverts on the WW2 template. You say the edits lack consensus, but in what do you base that? and might I not mention you are new on Wikipedia? Please give good reasons for you reverts. Thank you. ( (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC))

Hi. First, you should not come here and talk about being new or not. Then, I guess that it must be because you are an IP that you don't seem to know what a consensus is. You should open talk page, add a new section and write as subject "Changing nations order". I cannot see one that clearly says that "France should be ahead of China". And no one else seems to agree with your potential theory claiming that "without France the Allies would have lost". Is this a case of self-proclaimed consensus? Thank you for your understanding. --Bright Darkness (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Gallipoli Campaign[edit]

Hello, I've just undone your recent change to the article's infobox as the article itself notes that there are differing views of the results of this campaign, and no consensus on the matter among historians (please refer to Gallipoli Campaign#Military repercussions). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bright Darkness

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did to Willian Borges da Silva, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request[edit]

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores, based on WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus here. Has also been discussed many more times. If you keep adding this your edits will be considered disruptive and you may be blocked. Please wait until matches are finished. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Results by matchday[edit]

Please read Talk:2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season, there everything is explained. There are no such things as rounds in Premier League, which is why we use results by matchday. That is why we list the league position of every team as they were when all games that day ended. All matches has ended today and Chelsea are second in the table. Aslo look at the source that has Chelsea second after matchday 16. QED237 (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. I have told you before. No livescore or live updates QED237 (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I just wanted to let you know that when making updates like this you must update the timestamps, which you failed both on "results by matchday" and "results summary". This so that other editors know a change is made, otherwise others may come and add same results again. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to mention you should also make sure that your edits are sourced. QED237 (talk) 23:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to remind you again after this edit. Please update all the timestamps for each section you update. QED237 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea (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) 08:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

System of a Down[edit]

Hello. I do not think System of a Down has enough progressive elements in order to be considered progressive rock as one of it's main subgenres, and I think it's something of a misrepresentation to classify them as it. I put this on your talk in hopes of coming to an understanding more so than to "win" over a silly editing fight. What is your justification?

SoonerOrLaterJohn (talk) comment added 10:42, 21 June 2014