User talk:Darkness Shines

Off till tomz sometime

So if Sandstein does TBAN me in the next few hours would someone be so kind as to let me know were I can file an appeal. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

When you're back, can I ask you whether you consider there are some striking similarities in the editing patterns of editors User:Keysanger and User:Chelios123. You could say my spidy sense is tingling or alternatively the WP:DUCK quacks strongly with this one (apologies to George Lucas in advance). Let me know what you think? Wee Curry Monster talk 22:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Will have to look later, only have a few minutes for now. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I was thrown at first by the lack of article overlap, [1] Not a lot, but then I looked at Chelios123 edit history, it is a bit hit and miss, but there are striking similarites in edit summaries. However the level of English between both is markedly different, I cannot see an editor using better english for a sock over their main account, my guess is they both hail from the same place, but that seems to be as far as it goes. Will look further later. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I came close to filing an WP:SPI but as both Keysanger and Marshal are editors I've been on good terms with and often mediated between I found it difficult. I like both to be honest, each has their faults so I thank you for acting as a sounding board. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 16:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the article Female infanticide in China. I'd like to commend you for creating the neutral, balanced, and well referenced article on this important topic. Zanhe (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for voting to unblock me. In a way, I am glad that you now know the true intentions of Chelios and Keysanger, but it saddens me that you now also have them as shadows. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Result of your edit warring complaint about Mondoweiss

Please see the result of WP:AN3#User:HaleakalAri reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warnings), which contains a warning for you. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world

Hello! Your submission of It’s a girl: The three deadliest words in the world at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Brianhe (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

1818 Sri Lankan genocide

You have reverted the sourced content in Genocides in history page, about the 1818 Uva-Wellassa genocide of Sri Lankans committed by the British Army after the successful suppression of Great Rebellion of 1817–18, citing "At least one of those sources are misrepresented. " Could you please tell me the misinterpreted source here? Further, I would like to know how this content which is cited with reliable web sources fall in to WP:GF? It seems like you and User:Tobby72 are having Conflict of interest in this subject, and want to cover-up this particular genocide, while similar genocides in the history are covered by the article. --DinoGrado (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Fairly certain I explained it on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't u have any answers to my questions here? The way I figured your COI is not relevant to the removal of sourced content, isn't it? --DinoGrado (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the article talk page? And still not idea what his COI is. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

At the time I made my second comment your comment in the article's talk page wasn't properly signed. Later it was corrected by User:PBS. Anyway I have reworded the content and added to the article. --DinoGrado (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have posted a question to Talk:Genocides in history#British Ceylon, which I think will help clear up this issue as to whether the entry should be on the page. and providing accusations of misconduct can be left out of the discussion it shoudl be easy to see if this new section has any merit.

DinoGrado if it is decided that the section should be removed and you think that there are other sections with "similar genocides in the history are covered by the article." that do not meet the conditions I have outlined im my posting to Talk:Genocides in history then please raise them in a separate section on the article talk pagw so other editors can review them to see if they ought to be deleted. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to 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 are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "First Indochina War". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 11:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Misleading Edit Summary at Rwandan Genocide

Lemurbaby temporarily hid that section until he could flesh out the rest of the article and trim/revise the content, a move no-one challenged on the talk page.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then a misunderstanding, and not misleading. Feel free to revert me. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll let him revert you if he decides it would be best. I trust his judgment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hoppe

Hello Darkness, my old friend. If you disagree, that's fine but please use talk under the BRD guidance. These articles relating to the Mises institute have generated a lot of contention over the past 6 months and it's much better not to undo a reasoned reversion such as mine. This issue has been discussed previously on talk. Please put it back for now and let's use talk if you feel strongly about this. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm, we remove potential BLP issues, then talk. Not the other way round. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's make this official; notice of topic sanctions.

As a result of a community discussion, the community has enacted editing restrictions, described at WP:AEGS and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian economics, if, despite being notified of these restrictions, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standard of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, or any other measures that the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanction being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to the community discussion and, when appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor, provided the editor has been previously informed as this message does. This notice does not necessarily mean your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice will be logged at WP:AEGS. MilesMoney (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)