User talk:DarkFalls

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

Contribs —— Home —— Talk —— Email —— Identity —— To Do —— DYK


Wikimedia Commons —— Meta-Wiki —— Wikipedia —— Wikisource —— Wikiquote —— Wiktionary


The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

Hi[edit]

Hi. Can you delete these racistic comments? I've been warned and I don't want to start an "edit war." thanks. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

*stabs*[edit]

:) Daniel (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

:) I am pleasantly surprised to see that the hole had not consumed you. —Dark 11:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Haha harsh! Daniel (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

ANI re livelikemusic and Cebr1979 Comment[edit]

Hello, it appears livelikemusic and Cebr1979 have made up after your responses to them. I am not an admin so I don't think I can 'close' the discussion. Badanagram (attempt) 19:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that the discussion needs a "close", then feel free to add the template (I am not aware of any policy against non-admin closure assuming it's clear-cut). Personally I would rather have it archive naturally unless it is a contentious issue, there seems to be little harm in leaving it open for further opinion, so to speak. I find it unnecessary to add {{resolved}} to every thread. —Dark 16:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
May you be directed to this for further informative use. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
They felt it appropriate to open another ANI report. livelikemusic my talk page! 03:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Confused[edit]

I'm confused by the message you left on my talk page and at ANI... Why was socking brought up? I only have one account.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

[1]Dark 22:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

So clearly livelikemusic has two (or more) of them or you wouldn't have brought it up. Lovely.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a precautionary warning. You are continuing your assumptions of bad faith and it is extremely disappointing. —Dark 22:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. It just seemed like you were onto something there and it I really want to stress that I only have one account. Anywho, it looks like the conversation is closed so I thank you for your time.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

User talk:Ana Xsosta[edit]

While I don't see any problem in removing templates from the above talk page per se, you did remove some written material as well (in the section started by LM2000, below the first and only template). --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —Dark 18:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

abusive edit summary[edit]

the edit summary of this page is full of abuse.. clear them all https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durga_Vahini&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.0.242 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Dark 19:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

this edit summary also contain abuse.. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&action=history (third one from top)

>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=612187872

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.0.242 (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

more edit summary with more abuses[edit]

this edit summary also contains abuse http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bindu_Madhav_Pathak&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.0.242 (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Deor[edit]

Hi Dark. I think you tried to support, but the ":" you entered means it won't show up in the total. Thanks for participating. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No I was awaiting the answer given in question 8. Unfortunately I didn't think the answer was up to par. —Dark 20:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Assumptions being made AGAIN[edit]

Once again, assumptions are being made again against me. Is there any way you could make this just stop? I haven't been on Wikipedia is days, and I'm still being accused of things and meaning things that I'm not. livelikemusic my talk page! 16:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC) ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Potential violation again [2], assuming and stating things that I never have stated, and talking about users themselves and not their edits. Not trying to stir up trouble, just feel like potential biting may be going on, and that a potential interaction ban may need to take place at this point to see how that works out. I'm just over feeling like I'm doing all wrong; I feel like while I could be overreacting in this situation, that's why I'm coming to you, hoping for potential guidance (and support) in this, as we're bound to run into the same circles of editing, due to the interest of soap operas, but I've made my attempts to steer-clear from any potential incivility, however, I don't feel the same is being returned. livelikemusic my talk page! 00:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, just don't interact with him and don't follow his edits etc. The link you provided does seem to be an improvement from past behaviour. If you strongly disagree with one of his edits, feel free to express what's wrong on the talk page, but in general if you don't feel strongly about it, ignoring him is probably a good idea. I don't see a need for a formal interaction ban. —Dark 01:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
But that's the thing; a lot of the pages they do edit on are pages I also edit on, since they're soap-related. And I'm afraid to express or approach something with said-user, for fear of past situations happening, because it was an ugly situation that I don't feel like repeating. And I don't like feeling that way. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
@DarkFalls: Once again, being accused of Wikihounding and down below, tattle-taling. simply by following pages on my Watchlist. Will you now allow for an interaction ban, or something? Please? It is getting out of hand at this point! All I am doing is following the formats of {{Infobox soap character}}, and I'm accusing of reverting their edits and Wikihounding them. It's making me want to quit Wikipedia because of how much I am hated by this one person. Another person does the same of me, and they receive nothing like the messages I am receiving. At this point, it's feeling constantly abusive, and I am over it. It is not fair in the slightest, I have been keeping my distance. The mere fact I have pages on my Watchlist makes me a Wikihounder now? That is pure accusation, and I'm over feeling bullied by said-user. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It's always bullying when it's someone else, isn't it? You were told to stop following my edits and, if you really felt strongly, then to take it to the talk page. You ignored both and continued on with your usual ways of just reverting. That's not an accusation, livelikemusic, that's a fact! You were told to stop something and you didn't. That's all I'm going to say. I won't be returning to this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I NEVER FOLLOWED YOUR EDITS! The pages were on my Watchlist, and I linked to the infobox as reasons for my changes, as I've edited on those pages prior, following other disruptive edits from other users! And you're Wikihounding me by following me to this conversation TWICE. I'm fucking done trying to just go about my business, when I'm being accused by another user of shit I am not doing. It's unfair and unjust, and pure bullying. livelikemusic my talk page! 17:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I went to your contributions to see if you had responded to my suggestion about Amber Moore's infobox and saw this. You can talk to me about anything! In fact, that would be preferred (and I've told you that before)! It's the reverts with no explanations that are upsetting because then I'm confused and don't know why you reverted my edits. Even when I ask you about something (as I recently did on your talk page about Paige Larson), you just delete my question without answering creating more confusion! When I inquired about the soap opera infobox template you quoted, you ignored that too (I had to find out from someone else today). With you, Livelikemusic, it's always revert and ignore. Revert and ignore. Then, I find these tattle-tale posts saying you're scared of me but, I've tried having discussions with you (dating back to our very first encounter) and get ignored. Then, my edits get reverted again. When you do finally respond to me, I get these "policies" quoted and when I ask about them, you go back to ignoring! You do know more about editing than me, yes, but would it kill you to explain a revert or answer a question once in awhile? Confusion leads to frustration and frustration leads to anger. Arre 9 reverted something today and showed me where it said he was right and I dropped it and corrected my edit immediately. We never fought. It was completely civil the whole time.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

  • If you do feel an interaction ban is the best option, feel free to post on ANI regarding this. —Dark 01:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
i do, because no matter the edits or edit summaries I provide, I'm accused of things I am not doing, and it is simply unfair! livelikemusic my talk page! 01:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Feeling Wikihounded, and I definitely feel like this time it IS intentional. I opened up a discussion here, and said-user never posted there until today after I made a final request of action, and I changed this page to this to represent what was discussed, and I'm being accused, once again, of undoing their edits. Their edit violates the manual of style, which was pointed out in the discussion on the infobox template. Editor from looking at the talk page history, has never edited at said-talk page, and now all of a sudden, things are changed on two pages that they just happened to make, and I'm accused of reverting their edit? I'm accused of following their edits, yet the Kelly Andrews page is simply on my WATCHLIST. Since when is using the "Watchlist" an act of following their posts? Something I've pointed out before and has been ignored and deflected. I'm tired of these accusations, and feeling like whenever I attempt to follow guidelines and policies I'm constantly told no, and get an attitude thrown at me. Surely a block or some kind of ban can be put into place officially. I never made a post directed at the user, yet the user continues to directly interact towards me. Stating: "Not start a conversation without me somewhere else" makes it sound like I have to involve him/her and him/her only; I started the discussion at the infobox page to create some kind of site-wide consensus, which is what Wikipedia runs on, no? And shows that MY edits are being watched and followed by this editor. Please, I'm begging you, this is getting out of hand. I've kept my sincerest distant from this user, and yet, I'm still getting a major uncivil vibe and attacks from said-user. I never intentionally set out to revert "their" edit, I simply was following the MOS of Wikipedia, not even looking nor caring who made said-edit. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Please. I haven't done anything in weeks but, I'm wikihounding you? You haven't followed what you were told to do and simply bided your time. Your own post asked if it had been decided upon or closed and yet, you acted as though it was decided upon and closed before getting an answer (an answer, I might add, you still haven't gotten). You never mentioned the Summer Newman page being on your watchlist yet, know of my edit to that page? You've even directed others to go look at it. But... Who is following the other's edit history???Cebr1979 (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC) "not even looking nor caring who made said-edit" Lol. But you've had a conversation going about THAT very edit for weeks now??? I'm not returning to this conversation. It's too laughable.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

User:DarkFalls/Leonardo Rocco[edit]

You userfied this without the attribution history. This is not permitted - I have therefore deleted the content. You are of course welcome to restore it properly by moving the history into your user area. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, meant to delete straight afterwards but forgot. —Dark 17:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 July 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 16 July 2014[edit]

Reduction of template protection[edit]

Hi DarkFalls, Could you please reduce {{Non-free use rationale}} from full to indefinite Template protection, to allow Template Editor access. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 July 2014[edit]