Jump to content

User talk:Darkness Shines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user started, researched, wrote and helped bring to GA status Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. An article which helps document the hideous abuses suffered by Innocents.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user wrote 1970 Bhiwandi Riots which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 18 September 2013.
This user wrote 2006 Vadodara riots which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 9 July 2013.
This user wrote Anti-Muslim violence in India which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 1 September 2013.
This user wrote Bangladeshis in India which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 3 September 2013.
This user wrote Cambodian genocide which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 13 January 2014.
This user wrote Charles Alexander Bruce which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 16 August 2013.
This user wrote Child soldiers in Sierra Leone which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 19 April 2014.
This user wrote Domestic violence in Pakistan which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 6 September 2012.
This user wrote Female infanticide in China which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 29 November 2013.
This user wrote Female infanticide in India which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 15 January 2014.
This user wrote François Ponchaud which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 12 January 2014.
This user wrote Genocidal rape which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 17 September 2013.
This user wrote Genocide of indigenous peoples in Brazil which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 9 September 2013.
This user wrote Geoffrey Davis (doctor) which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 23 August 2013.
This user wrote In the Shadow of the Sword (book) which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 24 October 2012.
This user wrote Islam: The Untold Story which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 9 October 2012.
This user wrote It's a Girl: The Three Deadliest Words in the World which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 10 December 2013.
This user wrote Mickey Free which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 27 September 2013.
This user wrote Muhafiz Khan Mosque which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 4 July 2013.
This user wrote Rape during the Armenian Genocide which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 16 April 2014.
This user wrote Rape during the Rwandan Genocide which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 30 January 2014.
This user wrote Rape during the Sierra Leone Civil War which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 1 July 2014.
This user wrote Rape in Pakistan which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 23 July 2012.
This user wrote Rou Shi which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 26 November 2013.
This user wrote The Butcher of Amritsar which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 25 July 2013.
This user wrote Tso-ay which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 19 February 2014.
This user wrote Women in Sierra Leone which was listed at Did You Know on the main page on 22 May 2013.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Freemesm (talk | contribs) at 06:39, 20 February 2013 (→‎David Bergman (journalist): reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Source evaluations

DS, When evaluating the weakness of a source, say in the article David Bergman (journalist)‎, you may want to look at all the sources that back up a fact. I'm not claiming that a blog is a strong source, but it is backed up by another stronger source. Also instead of blanking material, you could put a DUBIOUS template, if you think a fact is questionable, or a CITATION NEEDED template, if you think more references are needed for support. These are less extreme choices but reasonable as we try to improve the content. Looking at your past edit history, I think you might want to reevaluate whether your blanking strategy is appropriate and reasonable in so many situations. (I mean this in the most constructive sense of expression. Please don't read anything bad faith in my comments.) Best, Crtew (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversion was faster than my ability to write the above message :D. That was fast. I'll give you some time to look at this reference now and decide to restore it or make some more reasonable editing decisions.Crtew (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source[1] does not mention Sara Hossain, the only source which does is a blog. That is not usable for BLP information. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This source [2] makes the link clearer. It is after the next sentence as it references the relationship with all three, but you can set it off twice to make the connections clearer. In any case, you must now revert your own edit. Otherwise, I think you need to revert it and take this case to the Talk page if you disagree. I still think the above strategies (Dubious or Citation needed) are better suited to collective editing. I will check back in two days to make sure this was carried out. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but what you will find is that this source[3] will have been removed as well. User generated content is not RS, especially on a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FACT template is still the more appropriate solution in this case and your inability to be flexible does not allow others to find the citations that you should request and thereby improve the article. I have NO problem with you questioning a source or two -- that's fantastic that you do this and I encourage you! My bone to pick is with your strategy of blanking material so that NO improvements can be made. Material is buried using this approach and nobody else gets the chance to add to/improve the content. You need to be reasonable and take this to the Talk page as I suggest. Crtew (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you have just broken WP:3R (see history) and this will be reported soon if you don't take a more reasonable approach.Crtew (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I do not have a "strategy" and when you point me to the section of WP:BLP which says blogs and user generated content is suitable for use in a BLP I will self revert. There is nothing to discuss here, BLP policy is quite clear. I feel quite sure that I have not broken 3RR, what with only two reverts today on that article and the obvious BLP exemption from 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm no longer willing to use your talk page to discuss the matter and prefer open and transparent discussion. Please direct any further communication to me at the article talk page in question. I honestly look forward to a rational resolution of this matter. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out the better sources so that we can end this debate. Furthermore, after this is over, never, ever contact me about anything ever again. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no right to put me on any kind of noticeboard list. You must stop this immediately, take me off the list and leave me alone. Crtew (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to stalk me to a highly contentious article it is only right that I inform you that it is under arbitration enforcement. I inform quite a few people, it is no bigge. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NO it is a very big deal. You need to leave me alone. This is a backlash. Do not address me or contact me or put me on any kind of listing. Why do you think my editing on this site is about YOU? Are you that egocentric? Get over yourself. I was there to explore a connection between Bergman and the article and I have every right to do that. You have crossed a line Buddy/ I feel intimidated by your actions and no longer safe in this environment. And I will not tolerate this. You need to cease and desist. Crtew (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My response to your "notification" is on my talk page for all to see. Please stop contacting me. We're through entirely. I will not acknowledge you anymore as all it brings is trouble. You can have your little serfdom and I'm not interested in any further editing in this wild frontier section of Wikipedia -- even commas. The end. Crtew (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "David Bergman (journalist)".

Guide for participants

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:
  • It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
  • It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
  • It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
  • It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
  • It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
  • Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
  • Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
  • Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~".
  • If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 18:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record

Thanks for the offer DS, I'll report here each time I get a different IP address. Am I dreaming, or am I really self-imposing an edit ban because Bbb23 blocked me when I was dynamically assigned 212.183.140.33 by my ISP, on the assumption that I was the same editor who had received a 24-hour block for vandalism on 28 February 2010 (almost 3 years ago) whilst assigned that same IP address. And even though that same IP has been used several times almost every month since then. You've got to laugh, haven't you. 212.183.128.225 (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful with templates

Hi. I noticed that the warning template about Arbcom discretionary sanction which you placed on some users' talk pages says 'this notice is given by an uninvolved administrator', which I understand you are not. After a little digging, I found out the template isn't restricted to use by admins, but non-admins should use the parameter |admin=no. I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but take care when using templates that you have all the right arguments. CarrieVS (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were in the template does the |admin=no go? I have gotten this form of notification from an editor over the IP topics, it was the same as the one for this area. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the faintest idea. If a careful read of the template documentation doesn't tell you, I suggest trial-and-preview until it works. But you need to do it, or else you're impersonating an administrator. CarrieVS (talk) 11:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin told me that was the one to use. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sure it is the right one to use, but you need to use it properly. CarrieVS (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading more, I'm actually a little confused about your use of this template. As far as I can work out, it is supposed to be a warning for users who have already misconducted themselves on the topic in question. But from some things you have said ([4]) I am concerned that you might be using it as a pre-emptive notice that sanctions may be enacted if the user is disruptive; the template documentation notes that "preemptive warnings are considered hostile". It also says that "the template should be accompanied by an individualised message", but you seem to be placing it on talk pages with no such message. CarrieVS (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines, you left a warning for User:Crtew at WP:ARBIPA. I am guessing that you were concerned about International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh). Can you clarify exactly what the problem was with his editing that you feel merited a warning? Any diffs? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I left the warninf as he had edit warred BLP violations into the David Bergman article, Bergman is a blogger & journalist who is covering the ICT. I am of the opinion he stalked me to the ICT article as I had just done a few minor edits and he then turned up. After his lack of concern for BLP on the Bergman article I felt it necessary to let him know that this article is under arb sanctions. Carrie. I asked Sal which template to use, he told me this one. I am adding it in the exact same manner in which I got one regarding the IP conflict. I have only given it to editors who have editwarred, committed BLP violations, or are obvious SPA's & a meatpuppet. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TO: EdJohnston and Carrie, This is a change of story on his part. At that point, we had ended our discussion on Bergman. That was a whole separate matter. In the end, I satisfied the requirements for a better source (see below for the end of this story). I followed the edit from Bergman to that page I was not aware of who was editing there and all I did was copy edit. He continues to turn a coincidence into WP:Bad Faith. I did nothing wrong at International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh), and as you see above he can't seem to find anything beyond his vague feeling. Also I have every right to go there. I received no warnings while there. Tonight he and his friends (see the coordination in the section below) did an editing attack on David Bergman (journalist). Three editors all at once and pre-coordinated as the section below shows. I stopped editing once I realized what was going on. Based on all of these experiences (and the experiences others have shared with me), I'm going to report him at the admin site, if Carrie doesn't report him first. This is war editing from someone who has way too many rights in Wikipedia for the type of behavior he has been exhibiting. Crtew (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Darkness Shines. I mentioned your name in a comment I left at User talk:CarrieVS#Thanx. When you start to issue Arbcom warning messages there are certain expectations created about your conduct. If it seems you aren't using due care to issue these messages corectly. You certainly haven't left enough documentation with your warnings to identify the behavior that you think justifies them. If you are using poor judgment when you issue warnings this might be reviewed at WP:Arbitration enforcement. In future you would be on safer ground if you ask uninvolved admins to issue these warnings instead of doing it yourself. An admin who gave out such warnings for no easily visible reason would also be in trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 21:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DS. I'm removing the names you added. When you have issues with the editing behavior or any editor, please bring them to the attention of an uninvolved administrator. While there are sanctions on India and Pakistan articles in place, the intent of those sanctions is not to stifle discussion and, unfortunately, that is the main effect of undocumented behavioral warnings. --regentspark (comment) 22:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can my name be removed too? I was also illegitimately put on the list by DS Applesandapples (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed, were does one leave documentation? As I have said, I am following the same procedure as was given to me when I got templated over the IP thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Ed you yourself said Arbcom has made clear that non-admins can issue notifications of discretionary santions Darkness Shines (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And no difference at all in the language used it the template you said was fine to have been used on me[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is assumed that people who issue warnings know what they are doing. I don't see you as giving good rationales for the original warnings or having a plan in place to deal with disputes about the validity of the warnings. Any more turmoil of this kind is probably going to take us to one of the admin boards, possibly AE. At that time, the actions of whoever issued the warnings may be reviewed. Someone who is already involved in a topic area (such as yourself) may not be in the best position to judge whether others need to be warned using the language of {{uw-sanctions}}. That template says "continue to misconduct yourself", a harsh phrase that needs justification. If you are willing to reflect on recent events and take a break from issuing discretionary sanctions warnings this matter might go away. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Al-Ahbash, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abd-al-Wahhab (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) 11:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Bergman (journalist)

Hi Shines, in David Bergman (journalist)'s article is it ok to cite a bloggers blog as reference? A large part of this article is cited to that blog. Another point is in Works of journalism section an article written by him is given. I think it is a self promotional work. Another point is needed to add, that the War Crimes File documentary was removed by channel 4 for legal order from court.--Freemesm (talk) 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It i ok if the information is about himself yes. And what you removed were external links[6] Assuming the youtube link is to a legit C4 channel then in is not a linkvio so both of those can stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the Youtube link. That youtube channel does not belongs to channel 4 and this documentary was removed by channel 4 for legal order from court. If you think it can be there, then it is ok. But whats about Works of journalism? Here a link of his newspaper article linked directly. Is it ok?--Freemesm (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Would you please check the urgent mail? Freemesm (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness_Shines&oldid=539187276"