User talk:Darkness Shines

Sources

Could you enable the "Email this user" feature on your account? (Just give an non-personal email address in your preferences, it remains unseen to other editors as long as you don't write an email. But people can write you emails.) I have several interesting sources regarding some articles to share. (BTW, Magog, has totally lost it now. [1] Indian nationalists? Off-wikipedia canvassing? TopGun bringing out "lousy editors"?) Regards, JCAla (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Creation and evolution in public education. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	New Year Greetings for 2012!
	Happy New Year to you, Darkness Shines! Thanks for your contributions to defence and security related articles on India. A note of advice. Please be civil at all times to all editors even if you feel you are provoked. We have too few editors on Indian topics to lose someone like you. We value your contributions. AshLin (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Three-revert warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I am new to this.

I have been trying to update the article on Sir Paul Judge who I know well who has many references on the web and is a well know figure.

It appears that most of what I input has been deleted but I am unclear why.

As far as I know all the information I put in is accurate.

I see one contribution asking about possible confusion between Sir Paul Judge of the UK (who is the one I was editing) and a Dr Paul Q. Judge who appears to be from the US. Is this the problem?

Please let me have some input as to what is happening as the article which now appears seems to be minimal.

Willchurch (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Georgia (country)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Georgia (country). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly heads up

If you are going to decline submissions, please don't nominate them for speedy deletion unless they are blatent violations of policy. Also, you warned a generic user that has not edited in six years about the article. Please be more careful next time as you could really turn somebody off to Wikipedia if you do it wrong. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sridhar Teegala de-prod and to WP:AfD

Hi! Sridhar Teegala now at WP:AfD. Even tho it was the user who started the article who removed the WP:PROD tag, this still amounts to contesting the PROD. A silly technicality? I think so! --Shirt58 (talk) 08:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought a prod tag could not be removed by the creator of an article unless he added citations? But yes, a very silly technicality. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, Darkness. Removing this type of PROD without adding sources is vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(a) I think Seb is wrong about this.

(b) Or maybe I'm wrong about this.

(c) Meh. Not worth arguing about.

--Shirt58 (talk) 10:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Russell Mark

Please note I have removed the BLPPROD nomination from this page as it only applies to articles created after March 2010. Camw (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

For Magog, when he comes over to be an ogre

TG canvassingCalls an IP editor a trollFails to AGF, calls an RFC pointyadding references to an article is also naughtyCalls myself a troll in this section. He just reverted all the references I added to the article out That is bloody disruptive editing And of course there was all of this.

Comments by accused

• I have not broken 3RR once on any article, which explains why TG has failed to supply any difs. I have acted in accordance with policy at all times, all content remove or added adheres to WP:V & WP:NPOV. I have never enabled the e-mail function, and I fail to see what this has to do with anything either? This is an obvious case of an editor trying to gain the upper hand by looking for a block of a perceived opponent. The edit warrior here is in fact TG. [2][3][4]. Edit wars uncited content into an article. [5] Reverets in unsourced content. Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article. When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[6] he says "Blah"[7]
• Please provide a dff were I have made PA against you since I was asked not to Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the talk page and admins can see it since it's full of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you need to provide a diff were I have made a PA against you since I was asked not to. Please write only in your own section above.

• Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 Has only two reverts by myself since 15:38, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the talk page [8] TG has also has two reverts to this article in the same time period.[9][10]
• Separatist movements of India Has two reverts by myself since 16:11, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the article talk page Unexplained removal TG has also two reverts in the same time period. [11][12] Note, the majority of this content was not sourced.
• Inter-Services Intelligence has one revert by myself since 23:05, 11 December 2011‎ Which was also brought to the talk page [13] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Taliban has exactly one revert by myself ever. [14] Also brought to the talk page [15] TG on the other hand has three reverts on this article today. [16] [17][That is bloody disruptive editing] Please note, my edit fixed a misrepresentation of a source.
• Anti-Pakistan sentiment I did reach 3RR on this article, due to an IP editor misrepresenting a source [18] I also brought this to the talk page [19] were my view was supported by another editor.

• I also do not appreciate TG canvassing an administrator [20] whom I have had a personal disagreement with[21].
• I have asked TG to amend his new statements [22] As the two article he says I reached and broke 3r on are not correct.
• TG seems to think that my adding of a tag[23] to an article is a revert? [24] Does adding a tag really count as a revert?
• I would appreciate you actually looking through it all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Someone mentioned in the ANI thread that you're too liberal calling edits vandalism. Do you use Twinkle? There is a setting in your preferences under "Gadgets" called Twinkle. It adds a new rollback button called "Rollback (AGF)" to your article history list so the edit summary says "Reverting good faith edits by ...." It's helpful.--v/r - TP 15:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do use twinkle, thanks for the advice :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gone for fags

If I am blocked upon my return for that ANI report I will seriously wet my pants. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC) Not such an Ogre after all [25] Perhaps he has a sense of humor:0) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha. Having the tea. Cheers. JCAla (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your tireless efforts to improve the factual accuracy of political articles. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Referring to this in particular. JCAla (talk) 09:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is really kind :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

About your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sridhar Teegala

Hi Darkness! I would venture to suggest that the underlined part of your comment,

Delete. Per the two users above, and also just to annoy the bloody spammer who created such havoc

may quite possibly not be the best turn of phrase to use at WP:AFD discussions. Please be assured that I am most certainly not sending this little note to annoy you... though I admit it may well have that effect.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I know your right, but he was an irritating spammer :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That should be "I know you're right" :-P Wikipedia has rules we have to adhere to, and WP:CIVIL applies even to irritating editors. Keep up the good work, Darkness. Shirt "irritating apostrophe usage stickler" 58 (talk) 10:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wood Mackenzie Company Profile

Hello

I'm new to Wikipedia, and last week I posted a profile for the company I work for. I think you may have deleted it, is that right?

Please advise what I should do to successfully create a company profile. Should I tag it as an advert (is that what other companies do with their profiles?), or could I adjust the wording to something you would accept (and could you point me to some examples I can look at please?).

Thanks Paul.rowllings (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Paul

Hi. I answreed your questions about the links. Did you receive this? Thanks Paul.rowllings (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Taliban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And just to be clear, both to you, Darkness Shines, and for the sake of any admin reviewing this block (which you're free to object to): this did not happen in a vacuum. If it had, you definitely would not have been blocked. However, there is quite some history on this page of bickering, as you well know, as well as disruption by all parties involved (stalking, edit warring, accusations of bad conduct, frequent bad faith reports to noticeboards, etc.). Also, you added some fairly bold content to an article, which was removed, but which you then readded. That's not cool; TopGun has the right to remove it if he believes it violates WP:NPOV (sourced content is irrelevant if it violates NPOV) - even if you think it doesn't violate NPOV. Let me make this abundantly clear: you will not get your point of view across in this dispute by means of ramming it through on edit warring. That is not how dispute resolution works.

Now I understand you might be upset that I blocked you and not TopGun. Fine; you're right, TopGun has edit warred before. If he had been the aggressor today, I would have blocked him. And I will block him. But we're not talking about him here; we're talking about your conduct (WP:NOTTHEM). And this most recent event was the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak.

Finally, understand once again, that I am not against your POV in this dispute at all, and that I think you probably have a point, but that you're not going about it the right way. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict. I do not understand you at all. I did one revert, one. TG removed reams of reliably sourced content for no reason other than he does not like it. This is a bad block. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, I have asked TG for sources for his POV many many times on the Taliban talk page.this section this section and this one He never supply's and sources, just points to this which he seems to think covers any edit to the article. How am I to add what he demands if he never provides sources? All he does is revert and then prevaricates. It is not possible to edit with a person who says my edits are not NPOV but never provides sources for an opposing POV. Tell me, what does one do in that situation? Darkness Shines (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2012 (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:

I have had but one revert[26] since 1 January 2012 Were is the edit war? As can be seen in the section below I am preparing an RFC. I was not, nor did I intend to edit war. I ask I be unblocked so I can post the RFC. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has already expired. --MuZemike 03:31, 6 January 2012 (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.

• Edit interrupted by block. Leading Muslims have been highly critical of the Taliban interpretations of Islam.

Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs

The link you provided http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/doctrine-changes/jehovah-witness-beliefs/ is not a page written by Jehovah's witnesses, but by an organization opposed to Jehovah's Witnesses, therefore, the material presented does not come from the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. I just thought I would let you know. I have submitted the page for speedy deletion, since it is a clearcut case of copyright infringement. Willietell (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Prepare RFC

{{rfc|pol|hist}}

Should the following content be added to the article?

The Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) in 1994. The ISI used the Taliban to establish a regime in Afghanistan which would be favorable to Pakistan, as they were trying to gain strategic depth in the North West. Since the creation of the Taliban the ISI and the Pakistani military have given financial, logistical and military support. At first the Taliban numbered in the hundreds, and were badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the Madrassas in Pakistan. A Pakistani artillery attack on the border town of Spin Boldak allowed the Taliban to seize the town as well as the munitions dump in Pasha. The ISI also helped with the construction of terrorist training camps to both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In 1997 after the capture of Kabul by the Taliban Pakistan gave $30 million in aid and a further $10 million for government wages. In 2000 British Intelligence reported that the ISI were taking an active role in several training camps. In 2001 Pakistan claimed to have ended their support for the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. With the fall of Kabul to anti Taliban forces in November 2001 ISI forces worked with Taliban militias who were in full retreat. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf wrote in his memoirs that Richard Armitage, the former US deputy secretary of state, said Pakistan would be "bombed back to the stone-age" if it continued to support the Taliban. Pakistan has been accused of continuing to support the Taliban since 9/11, an allegation Pakistan denies.

References in here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Discussion of proposal

• Support As proposer, content is well sourced to academic publishing houses and is factual and accurate, as can be seen from the extensive quotes supplied.

American Reaction

At the beginning in 1994 the US did not object to the Taliban, and was seen by some as actually supporting them. Within a week of the 9/11 attacks the first Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) agents arrived in Afghanistan with the task of making contact with the Northern Alliance

Lede rewrite

The Taliban (Pashto: طالبان), alternative spelling Taleban, (ṭālibān, meaning "students" in Arabic) is an Islamist militant and political group that ruled large parts of Afghanistan and its capital, Kabul, as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until October 2001. It gained diplomatic recognition from only three states: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. The main leader of the Taliban movement is Mullah Mohammed Omar.

While in power, the Taliban enforced one of the strictest interpretations of Sharia law ever seen in the Muslim world, and leading Muslims have been highly critical of the Taliban interpretations of Islamic law. The Taliban were condemned internationally for their brutal repression of women. Most Taliban leaders were influenced by Deobandi fundamentalism, and many also strictly follow the social and cultural norm called Pashtunwali. The Taliban movement is primarily made up of members belonging to Pashtun tribes, the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan.

From 1995-2001, the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and military are widely alleged by the international community to have provided support to the Taliban in their rise to power and fight against anti-Taliban forces though Pakistan denies giving aid since 9/11. The Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth during their rule from 1996-2001. They use Terrorism as a specific tactic to further their ideological and political goals. From 2001 to 2007 there were 940 terrorist attacks, with the Taliban responsible for 58% of them.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001 the Taliban were overthrown by Operation Enduring Freedom. Later it regrouped as an insurgency movement to fight the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (established in late 2001) and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Today the Taliban operate in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. It is believed their current major headquarters are Quetta in Pakistan.

Source

There is also this interesting source:

Hussain, Zahid (2007). Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle With Militant Islam. Columbia University Press. p. 107. ISBN 0 85368 769 2.

• 1994-2001: ISI and Taliban
• Immediately post 9/11 in late 2001: "However, Pakistani intelligence agencies maintained some degree of cooperation with the Taliban elements fleeing the fighting."

JCAla (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice find, I shall add it to the above narrative. Thanks. Seen this [27] He appears not to have realized our unblock request are being ignored :o) Because we are [very naughty boys Darkness Shines (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL! If I hadn't awarded you the good humor barnstar yet, I'd do it right now. Note also, how, IPs suddenly try to draw people into edit wars over topics involving certain editors [28] (not referring to Rdavi here, whom I encoutered as a reasonable editor). TopGun is not doing himself a favour with what he wrote. JCAla (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ya saw that, pity the buggers never use the talk page. And is it not strange that a new IP comes along to edit war over what another IP edit warred over ;o) Darkness Shines (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Coincidence? JCAla (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Both IP`s are English. Both us BT Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha, I'd mention to Magog that being strange and needing analysis for being strange, but they keep telling me about that chutzpah thing. ;) JCAla (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I told him [29]. I mean, honestly, does it get more obvious than that? And be aware of what was written here including you since TG has removed it from his talk page. JCAla (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I am to be permanently banned even though I have never broken 3R? And what tit-for-tat filings? I have not filed at ANI or else were. This is wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That might have been a very strong warning to all involved. I guess admins will look carefully in the next days how things are being handled. So, let's be the perfect gentle people. Do you have a tie and a topper? ;) JCAla (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No but I do have a cane with a sword in :o) It would appear I am to serve my full time :o( For one revert. I really thought it would be knocked down to 12 for good behavior :o) After all, I have not used my Shiv on anyone :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You have such a cane with a sword? I like them. Sometimes see people going for a walk with such thing. I think the cane/sword fits more to a "gentleman" than the shiv thing. If you don't break parole you might still get away with the 24h custody. ;) JCAla (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be aware of this attempt. JCAla (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• No comment. JCAla (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd think, they'd realize

Hi there, how is it going? You'd think after we were calmly and gently going our editing, and suddenly certain editor comes back with the same behavior, people would realize where things are coming from. But I at least see a more (not yet fully) balanced approach. JCAla (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is what you get for expanding an article with the highest quality sources. And to think he edit wars unsourced content into articles on a regular basis, then has the temerity to remove swathes of reliably sourced content. He still will not provide sources for his POV, how many times have I asked him now? And all he does is point to that stupid NPOV thread. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Which (NPOV thread) isn't even relevant at all to this issue. I don't have the whiskey for you, but I am awarding you The Barnstar of Good Humor.

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For showing good humor during situations of dispute. JCAla (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, with any luck the RFC I am working on will do the job. I will have to ignore him though, lest it go the way of the previous one Darkness Shines (talk) 08:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true. Otherwise it will be difficult for others to join the discussion. JCAla (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

TParis gets it wrong.

[30] I was saying as the majority of sources use ISI and military then so should we. Perhaps I ought to have been clearer. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I also told him. JCAla (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he will understand, maybe not. I wish I had a TV, I am bored witless. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

He won't. Tell him to read (2010)India, Pakistan, and Democracy: Solving the Puzzle of Divergent PathsRoutledge ISBN 978-0415780186 pp180-181 ought to do it. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taliban

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Confederate government of Kentucky

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confederate government of Kentucky. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Taliban Economy

Hi, do you mind me adding something to your economy sandbox re Taliban economy? JCAla (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, thanks for helping Darkness Shines (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I am adding it there, since it seems logical to have it in one place. When you start disagreeing with my additions, I'll take it to my own place and we can discuss. Let me know. JCAla (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with your additions, I will move stuff around though for flow and narrative purposes. Once it is done we can fiddle over the finer aspects. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Socks and IP

I think you should be more concerned about those ips your dealing with than my perceived fake account

regards,

Billy Suppositries (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indians in Afghanistan

Hi there, seems as if the article is staying. Going to rewrite some things then, because in its current form it's just WP:COATRACK. JCAla (talk) 09:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What I wanted to know, do you still count on that article being deleted? JCAla (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope it will be, it is just a POV fork. If not then I suppose when time allows I will try and fix it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I have the content, but if I add it now, then the deletion request will probably become unnecessary anyways. JCAla (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I suspect it will be kept, you may as well add it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I suspect too. Since the article is of poor quality, it should at least be improved then. JCAla (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

have not forgotten your sources

I got sucked back into that university dispute, then got a job that needs to be done by this morning. Maybe I will be able to get to them later in the day. But I am not blowing you off.

No rush Elin, thanks for taking the time. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Taliban, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afghani (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) 10:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taliban

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taliban. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!

I'm new so hope I'm doing this correctly. Thank you for your note on my page and the cookies. Wikkiwitchh (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

As the CSD tagger that started this whole thing, you may be interested in the discussion going on at this page. Roughly, the article was not eligible for G12 because of its history, and has been undeleted to a subpage pending an investigation. Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 17:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Catholic Church and abortion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice

Regarding User_talk:BOMC#Three_Witnesses I apologize, the wording of your statement threw me off. I thought you were saying "For, your edits do not use..." lol. I will take your advice, thanks for the input!BOMC (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Human rights in Estonia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Darkness Shines, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User talk:Darkness Shines/sandbox.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.
• If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:East Germany

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:East Germany. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011 alleged Iran assassination plot

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for review and arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, JCAla (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, having read your question at the arbitration. The Arbitration Committee reviews and judges on conduct related issues only. If you so wish, you can comment on your perception about the issues raised in points 1) and 2) I requested arbitration on, as you are an involved editor with regards to 2). Regards, JCAla (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

"Extra" Tag Removal?

FYI, the tag you removed from Swiftboating was not an "extra POV tag" but an "article POV tag" as opposed to the second "section POV tag" (which is mine). While you are at liberty to remove a tag placed by another editor as you deem appropriate, it can be interpreted as a contentious edit and should be done with some care. Perhaps you may not be aware, but the editor who placed that tag is in active discussion within the article talk and the subject of his tag has already prompted considerable discussion...still in progress. Just making sure you are aware. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dude. One tag is enough, as it covers the whole article. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, how to confuse a person in one easy lesson. I am going to remove the pov section one then. And that is the last I wish to hear about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it's not. My "POV Section" tag both references and is linked to a specific talk section designated to address a specific POV objection to specific content. I am restoring my tag pending resolution of that POV issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop it

Removing a bad source would generally be fine... but stop hounding my contributions... get it? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 48 hours because it has become clear to me that you are acting as nothing other than a gadfly to TopGun.

To explain:

• You are clearly following his edits and hounding, which I warned you about twice before.[31][32] It is obvious that you not only haven't improved your behavior, but it's gotten worse. The fact that you came to Right to exist, a page which has nothing to do with Pakistan and India, and edit warred there, tells me you were clearly following his contributions.
• When discussing why a source shouldn't be used at Talk:Right to exist, you stated that their disclaimer admits that there may be editing or typographical errors, so it shouldn't be used. That is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard for not including a source - all major publications have occasional errors, and many admit to it. By those standards, almost no source could be used on Wikipedia. It is painfully obvious that you didn't like what the source had to say, so you went looking for a reason to not include it, no matter how spurious, and how cherry-picked it was.
• You have been edit warring across many pages. You have been showing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset as JCAla. Please stop that.
• Further evidence at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Still?. This is of course not an isolated issue.

TopGun is not totally innocent in this matter. But from what I can see, it looks like you are more guilty, so I've blocked your account. PLEASE try to edit more constructively in the future, not just go around and revert his edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I promised another editor on my talk page, I'm willing to have my actions reviewed, so if another administrator views this and finds it was non-actionable, by all means undo the block, and you will have no complaint from me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

To be honest this looks fairly reasonable, if you want some advice after the end of the block let me know.

You definitely shouldn't be even making the appearance of following TopGun around - it doesn't look good and it raises tensions if nothing else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not reasonable. The very reasons cited are not correct.

1. The page Right to exist does have to do with Pakistan and India.[33] Do other users now no longer have the right to edit pages TopGun has been active on putting nationalist statements such as: "Afghanistan is another nation that has irredentist claims over major Pakistani territories and is against Pakistan's right to exist." This is factually incorrect, Afghanistan challenges the Pashtun tribal areas and possibly Balochistan, not Pakistan's right to exist. See Durand Line for further elaboration. Now, are other editors not allowed to go to that page and challenge the content because TopGun has been active there? What kind of censoring logic is this? This should have no place on wikipedia.
2. Given reasons for using or not using a specific source on a talk page is no reason for a 48h block.
3. Why are you even mentioning me in this. I have not been edit warring across any pages. This is simply a false accusation. If Darkness Shines' reverts are the reason for the block then another editor has made an equal amount of reverts. Either take balanced actions or no actions.
4. If the very first and major reason you provided is not correct, how correct can the "reasons" be that were collected by TopGun (not you) on your talk page explicitly to get him blocked (read this,and this) to keep Darkness Shines from editing those articles?

With regards to the arbitration I ask you to honestly consider this. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

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:

I was not hounding anyone, I got to the article in question from TG posting about an RFC on the talk page of Mar4d Blocks are not meant to be punitive and since Magog seems to have blocked me for following contributions when in fact I had gone to look at an RFC shows he was wrong in his assessment. Further to this, in reviewing the WP:BLOCK Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals below) I should like Magog to explain how my being blocked for looking at an RFC is preventing damage to wiki.

Accept reason:

block has expired regardless Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the dispute and issues to decline the unblock, but this block looks correct—it will prevent future hounding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Supposed hounding.

Evidence to check

1. [34] You've seen this and recognized it has a hounding revert.. there was no way he got there by himself.
2. [35] Got here through my contributions list; the stub was only edited by a few users before. On a BRD revert (with a good explanation he couldn't object to - he then tagged the article for deletion - well known story ahead).
3. [36] I'm one of the starting users of this article, definitely accessed from my contributions and the dispute spilled over his BLP, now at DRN at length wasting time I could use to edit articles.
4. [37] Got in to make some edits here and there where I was having a dispute (and an old editwar) with a really rude IP editor who was reverting 3-4 users. then posted on the IP's talk to ask him if there was anything he needed to be edited so that he could do that on his behalf [38].
5. [39] Tagged a former FA for CSD just after I edited it and this turned out to be a bad tag (the article actually got deleted and then restored [40]). This one was ridiculous as the criteria he gave for CSD (12) was incorrect since even in case of violation all 3000 revisions of the article would not be copy vio.
6. [41] Very obvious: added a POV tag to the main country article on which I'm working with a few users to get it to FA and just had a peer review. The version was of right after the peer review. Then started inviting conflicts on the talk page - strongly rebutted by many users there.
7. [42] Came here to edit and started massive disputes (still on) after I reverted a confirmed sockmaster whose sock was blocked but was given a chance to discuss his dispute instead of a block. I really really tried to help him resolve here (all on talk page) but no use.
8. [43]
9. [44] An old editwar but I quit the dispute and left the sources on talk page since he didn't let me add a word to the two line section for which I had sourced info.
10. [45] Very obvious: and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk even when two editor told him he was wrong. Continued to add verification failed tags to verified sources.
11. [46] An RFC !vote (rather vote); something like "whatever JCAla says".
12. [47] I simply restored an unexplained removal by a vandal who first blanked and then CSD'd the article as "hoax"... nevertheless DS comes to revert and to talk page to discuss my habits.

Responses to above

This "evidence" of hounding is bullshit.

1. [48] First diff, I got there on RC patrol which I do quite regularly, note section blanking tag
2. Indians in Afghanistan
3. [49] I got here via random article, my first edits were to add multiple sources.[50] I had not seen TG had edited the article till I looked on the talk page to post about M. M. Alam.
4. [51] RC patrol and see an edit war on the go, I consulted an admin before I even edited this article. [52]
5. [53] So I made a mistake on copyvio? I doubt I was the first.
6. [54] Based on the fact that TG's talk page is on my watchlist it is hardly surprising that I would look at the article on Pakistan, given TG's inability to allow any information he feels critical of his nation into an article.
7. [55] How is this one hounding? I edited this article well before TG.[56]
8. [57] Another editor did in fact agree that the edit in question was fatally flawed.[58]
9. [59] A post on an RFC is now hounding is it? Much like the one which got me blocked no doubt.
10. Separatist movements of India Your damn right I followed him to this article, and a few of others above, and no it is not hounding, it is because of this.

1. [60][61][62]. Edit wars uncited content into an article.
2. [63] Reverets in unsourced content.
3. Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article.
4. When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[64] he says "Blah"[65]
5. [66] Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
6. [67] Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
7. [68] Misrepresentation of sources
8. [69]Battlefield mentality, talks of "sides"
9. Inter-Services Intelligence was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, He reverts again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses.
10. Taliban we have the same issue again, TG reverts out[70] huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan.

This is why I check his contributions, he has edit warred unsourced content into articles on a regular basis, he has edit warred unreliable sources and unsourced information into BLP [71][72]

• I really cannot be bothered to sort all of this into dates, but I began watching TG's edits after his edit warring uncited content into articles. He is a nationalist POV pusher, and a bad editor.

• I would appreciate Magog looking at this and commenting. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Before someone might mistake what you wrote. You might check his contributions but I don't think what you wanted to express above was that you "followed him to the article" Separatist Movements, I think what you wanted to express is that you became aware of the article AFTER TopGun had already edited before you. Following in the sense of editing afterwards not in the sense of hounding. And, you know by now that Magog does not look seriously into allegations against TopGun. Have been there before. JCAla (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was quite clear, yes I began to check his contributions after his edit warring unsourced content into articles. This is what I mean by I followed him, I was checking his contributions. Why is this an issue? An editor continually edit wars uncited content into articles, then he needs to be checked. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Because it could be misunderstood as hounding - the reason given by Magog for blocking you. Like in the sense of following him to articles. Read this, so that you can clarify what you mean. JCAla (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about this a bit further: you believe he is introducing systematic bias into Wikipedia articles, so you are following him. That's actually a legitimate reason to follow someone; in particular, I remember you reverting some of his contributions a while back that has absolutely nothing to do with India/Pakistan (unlike this instance, where I was apparently wrong). That was part of the reasoning behind the block. If it was just this, I would unblock you on the spot.

However, I'm worried about you stating that something that is unquestionably a reliable source is unreliable. If you believe the article is introducing bias (i.e., WP:NPOV), that is entirely different from introducing poorly sourced material (i.e,. WP:RS). They are two separate policies completely. Upon further reflection, it seems to me that maybe you were thinking bias, but didn't express yourself very well and so instead went after the source. If this is the case, I am much more sympathetic to the actions (especially given that the content was clearly written in such an insulting way), and I will definitely unblock your account. Can you confirm that's the case?

In any case, in the future, you might want to make sure you don't come up with entirely spurious reasons for opposing material (e.g., that something is unreliable) and instead go after the real reason that something is inappropriate (e.g., that it's undue weight, or written in a non-neutral fashion). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

That is what I meant yes, I meant the obvious bias but got sidetracked into source discussion. On the talk page I had begun talking about this, [73] with this edit. Yes I went about it the wrong way, and yes I will ensure I am more concise in future. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed comments by TG [74] for the obvious. First anyone can check my contributions and they will see I often do RC patrol. In fact my last bunch of edits before being blocked were RC patrol.[75] Second, as he is so insistent on my not posting on his talk then he really ought not post here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Mongolian People's Republic shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Mewulwe (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mongolian People's Republic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I did not break 3rr, I was reverting a highly disruptive editor who was continually removing reliably sourced content. Also according to 3rr I should have had the chance to self revert. WP:3RR If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion The chance would have been a nice thing, as had I been asked I would have self reverted.. Also as my previous block was in fact an error on the part of Magog 72 hours is excessive. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, this one most certainly is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not break 3rr, I was reverting a highly disruptive editor who was continually removing reliably sourced content. Also according to 3rr I should have had the chance to self revert. [[WP:3RR]] ''If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion'' The chance would have been a nice thing, as had I been asked I would have self reverted.. Also as my previous block was in fact an error on the part of Magog 72 hours is excessive. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, this one most certainly is. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not break 3rr, I was reverting a highly disruptive editor who was continually removing reliably sourced content. Also according to 3rr I should have had the chance to self revert. [[WP:3RR]] ''If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion'' The chance would have been a nice thing, as had I been asked I would have self reverted.. Also as my previous block was in fact an error on the part of Magog 72 hours is excessive. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, this one most certainly is. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not break 3rr, I was reverting a highly disruptive editor who was continually removing reliably sourced content. Also according to 3rr I should have had the chance to self revert. [[WP:3RR]] ''If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion'' The chance would have been a nice thing, as had I been asked I would have self reverted.. Also as my previous block was in fact an error on the part of Magog 72 hours is excessive. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, this one most certainly is. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines#top|talk]]) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}