User talk:Darkness Shines

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)

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)