User talk:Darkness Shines/Archive 6

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Widefox's talk page.
Message added 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Widefox (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan. 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) 20:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Conservative Party of Canada. 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, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Last note on the matter

Hi there, if you keep responding on Magog's talk, you are inviting him to again act in these cases, which will, as he said himself, lead to one or both of you being blocked indef. And Magog's sympathies are definitely not tilting towards you. I won't say any more on this, as I am done with this issue as I wrote to Magog himself. I am going to stick with what Salvio has to say as until now he has been fair, balanced and shown restraint after "reports". Regards, JCAla (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot of choice in the matter is there. And yes, I have no doubt Magog will once again ignore what I wrote and block me again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Choose another administrator of your confidence. You don't have to react to what other ppl write on Magog's talk. JCAla (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The only other admin who is familiar with the situation gave up. I may as well do the same as no matter what I do I am going to get blocked. I spent a lot of time researching that article to try and get it up to GA status and now it is being trashed by the likes of Mar4d and I can do nothing about it. I am wasting my time here in trying to write well researched factual articles, so are you. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I for my part will continue to seek Salvio's advice. I think any further attempts on your side to explain anything to Magog might be in vain. User:Whenaxis said he/she wants to try to mediate. JCAla (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Whenaxis is not an admin, any requests I would make there would no doubt be reported as a violation. The simple fact of the matter here is that Magog has made up his mind, he views me as a trouble maker and has blocked me at every given opportunity. I have mailed him in the hope that he will actually read it and not just block based on what he is told. I have little hope though given his past mistakes. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are other admins which have dealt with the issue. ;) JCAla (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Nigel Inkster for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nigel Inkster is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Inkster until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed

Input is needed at a law-related RfC. I selected you at random from the list of editors at the RfC Notification service. If you are too busy, or not interested, please disregard this notice. --Noleander (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tokyo Two

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Tokyo Two. 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, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger?

Not an issue of refusing to reply; I simply forgot, and I'm sorry. Given the fact that you've edited the article since that time, why do you say "I am still unable to edit an article I created"? It seems to me either that you've already violated the interaction ban by editing it, or you're free to edit it more without fear of violating it. Nyttend (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you on about? I have not edited that article since it was merged, all I have done are add some tags. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International recognition of the State of Palestine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International recognition of the State of 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) 10:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Hi! My article "Galena Biopharma" was deleted due to copyright infringement. Is there any way to restore the deleted article to my user space so that I may make the proper edits so it will not longer be seen as a copyright infringement? Any assistance you could give would be much appreciated. Thanks! Louphatton (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Leo Wanta

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Leo Wanta. 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, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muammar Gaddafi. 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) 11:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, check that Baboon43 keeps on adding stuff to Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page without getting consensus of other editors

Please, check here that Baboon43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps on adding stuff to the Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page without getting the consensus of other editors. Thank you. AmandaParker (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't just jump the gun

I am afraid you are wrong about 182.185.87.215 being my sock-puppet. That IP address is from Pakistan (See here) and I am based in the United States. I never logged-out. AmandaParker (talk) 09:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Jaish-e-Mohammed

I agree with you here. In fact I greatly admire the patience with which you worked on piece by piece edits before you finally gave up and took the easy way out: I would have given up sooner. I have been wondering about rev-deletion to remove the copyright infringements from the article history. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've now stopped wondering about it. Looking again, I find that the net effect of the edits from the copyvio introduction to just before you started removing the copyvios was no more than minor changes, so there is nothing worth worrying about. I have rev-deleted the copyvio-containing edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dave Camp

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dave Camp. 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) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. 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) 13:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

???

did you list me as a potential sock puppeter? i dont use sock puppets if thats the case Baboon43 (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, AmandaParker the editor you were edit warring with opened that SPI. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Talbot Hobbs. 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) 01:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source

Hello,

actually I don't understand why this isn't a reliable source to you. Anyway it is just a well-known fact that the English are called 'rosbifs' in France in the same way as they call the French 'Frogs'. It's no new fact...

Sincerely yours

Cuivenen (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're right for this point, but again, why is a source needed for such a well-known cultural fact? Every French preson (like me) or anyone who has travelled to France knows it :)

Cuivenen (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:V, also WP:INDENT Darkness Shines (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) If it be a source ye seek. [1] --regentspark (comment) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rajneesh movement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rajneesh movement. 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) 14:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick introduction

Well, thank you. I hope I will be able to help out with wikipedia. It is always a pleasure to work with motivated people. :) Dipanjan.mu (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War. 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) 02:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Mar4d's sockpuppets

I found a confession of one of the IPs I suspect to be Mar4d. See the investigation page for detailes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

hey

they took out your dispute tag on the al ahbash article and they are not letting me add any content to the article is that allowed on wikipedia? Baboon43 (talk) 23:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: List of Parkavakulam personalities

Hello Darkness Shines. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on List of Parkavakulam personalities to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Norwegian Defence League

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Norwegian Defence League. 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) 15:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why Atlan delete my edits?

Yesterday I made an account on Wikipedia. When I started with edits, Atlan deleted all my texts. You know the reason for it? Please - HELP! TaoKing (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)TaoKing

Sock of Ana Susac. I'm just waiting for DeltaQuad to come back online to set another range block.--Atlan (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, I have been watching the page since you posted on DQ's talk. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is "Ana sušac"? What does this mean? — Preceding TaoKing comment added by TaoKing (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:September 11 attacks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:September 11 attacks. 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, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Reactions to Occupy Wall Street. 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, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Darkness Shines. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Taipei

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Taipei. 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, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Your post at ANI regarding Al-Ahbash

Hello Darkness Shines. There are several previous admin discussions about this article, especially at WP:AN3. If you believe your concern deserves a response at ANI, it is best if you will link to all the past discussions, to save admin time. Click on Al-Ahbash and use 'What links here' (visible at left of the page) to find the previous discussions, selecting 'Wikipedia space' in the box. The result is [2]. Then you can add links to the previous discussions to your ANI report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please!

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Pakistan. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Being drunk is no excuse for insulting other editors. Huon (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings. 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) 17:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Stop your POV pushing now you get it? --83.170.106.45 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No idea what your on about, that link leads to a userlogin page. And stop adding a shared IP notice to your talk page, your IP is not a school IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say school IP dude are you ok? You edit logged out that is not my fault it is your POV editing. --83.170.106.45 (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Editing without logging in is sock puppetry --83.170.106.45 (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to report you to administrator if you do not revert this edit --83.170.106.45 (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

O piss off Nangparbat, I have better things to do with my time than waste it on you. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And you do realize your link leads to a login page right? Not an article. Try showing me an article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You've lost it I'm not Nangparbat. --83.170.106.45 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Confirmation

Hi there, just seeking confirmation that it was actually you on 15 March on the rocket? JCAla (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought it was just me who got drunk and made little sense? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Nah, but it could have been anyone using a name, couldn't it? JCAla (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You've totally lost me, what rocket? Who was using my name? If you wish it to remain private I have activated e-mail so just use that. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, ok. JCAla (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nation of Islam

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Nation of Islam. 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, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

So much for hounding

Do not stalk me again, as you just did at Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah. It is quite obvious that you got there by looking at my contribs. The next time you do so, I shall report you to Salvio for hounding. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not look at your contributions, your talk page is on my watchlist. Now do run along. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What is my talk page doing on your watchlist? You seem to be setting the ground for an official hounding complaint at Sal's talk page. Remove my talk page from your watchlist and kindly refrain from popping up at places I go to. Consider this a word of warning. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you see there is a little star icon which if you click puts a page on your watchlist, I tend to do it when I post on a talkpage. Take your words of warning elsewere, and do not post threats here. BTW, what is your relationship to User:Strider11? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's going to be a complaint over misconduct. Having said that, you're other interesting question brings me to a rather more relevant question: Are you by any chance related to User:NisarKand (User:Officer on Commons?) Mar4d (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to file a misconduct complaint because I followed a link from your talk page to an article more power to you. No idea who that officer guy is, but he comes across a little peculiar. I stumbled across his SPI case on commons, have you seen it? The poor chap seems very paranoid. Well done on avoiding my question BTW Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And looking at his contributions there is not a lot of crossover[3] plus he appeared to be a Muslim[4] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting this discussion. Now I finally know who Officer is. JCAla (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a fellow by name of Lagoo sab Darkness Shines (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Dooh. JCAla (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Am I the only person on Wikipedia who follows links? The SPI investigation for NisarKand redirects to Here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

JCAla (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

We may soon have to conduct our discussion on my talk ... we will see ... JCAla (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just take the deal, all you need to make an edit is for one user to agree with you after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not about that. I have no problem with the deal, the problem is with the message. JCAla (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the additions I was making in Hadith of the pond of Khumm article

• I would like to bring to your notice, that the talk page of the article, demanded that the contents of the speech be included.
• That aside, it would have been very polite of you to have sent your concerns to me before you deleted my evening of hardwork. I was going to organise the quotes and data anyway.
• I was simply stating things, and that is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. You're welcome to make constructive contributions, but what you did ammounts the Vandalism. I wasn't forcing you to read those sections in the article; you could have easily skipped those sections if you didn't like them.

I'm happy to tell you that i have saved that information in text files on my local device. If you have any suggestions about how i must present that data on the page, I'd be happy to hear from you again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huzefa Saifee (talk • contribs) 17:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jewish Internet Defense Force. 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, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "India, Afghanistan and Pakistan". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 April 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Touré

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Touré. 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) 07:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review these edits on Indophobia

[5].14.139.193.45 (talk) 08:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Ok before I get blocked I just want to apologise for getting aggressive and annoying I hope next time I edit as a proper editor fingers crossed I wont be back for a while (even though I said this 2 months ago :/) peace and love Ruffruder0 (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Why am I being attacked by someone called fasttimes68? Is this normal behavior on this site? Thanks. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

He believes you to be a sockpuppet See here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Here today, gone minutes later. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch Darkness Shines (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lassi for you

	Some Lassi for chilling out
	With mosquitoes coming in with an obvious predetermined target, even then you have kept yourself cool, good work with the 'headshots' keep it up, cheers ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Azad Kashmir. 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) 20:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alicia Silverstone article

She didn't first come to public prominence for clueless. She got ample attention for her first film, The Crush, winning MTV movie awards for that, and got ample coverage for the Aerosmith videos she did after that. Please join the talk page discussion to determine if anything should be written about Clueless at all in the lead. Dream Focus 23:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree, and am confused as to why this information was removed from the lede. The combination of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, and WP:LEDE gets tricky. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring?

Please provide some diffs or other explanation on why you feel the notice was necessary. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is necessary as you refuse to listen to those on talk, that and the fact that by the actual policy of WP:3RR you have actually reached 4. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the last revert I made was days ago.

Whatever you're objecting to, I cannot respond to it if you don't identify what it is. --Ronz (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello there,

I have added my e-mail address to my Wiki account. Hopefully you can send me an email with your address on there, and then I can reply from there onwards.

--Rvd4life (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Dae Gak

Thanks for helping with Dae Gak sock vandal. I'd appreciate anything you can do to look into that situation. I will file sock report, but it seems to lead back to Durruti36, who when flagged for edit warring, went dark. A new editor appeared, freshly created, called settingtherecordstraiht1234, who when flagged, turned into the new version Deeplyconcerninggenthner, and just keeps picking up speed with those reverts.Tao2911 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

speak of the devil, "settingtherecord..." is right back at it.Tao2911 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Filed an SPI. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

thank goodness - those things take me forever.Tao2911 (talk) 22:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh no! You messed up. "Concerning Genthner" is fine - "Deeplyconcenringgenthner" is the sock! The latter created the name to show opposition to the former!Tao2911 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Will change it, already reported Deeplyconcenringgenthner to AIV Darkness Shines (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pogrom

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pogrom. 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) 09:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic violence

I would give you a barnstar but I don't know how :/ thanks for starting this article friend I was having trouble in making one with a suitable title may I put information into it ? 86.181.132.144 (talk) 11:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, read WP:RS beforehand though. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

oops

Hey, didn't see you had commented again, when I removed sock from that talk. Yeah, that sock farm is massive. JCAla (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You shouldn't do that until the SPI is done. Guess who just posted above asking if he can edit my new article lmao. Do they never get bored? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, will wait then. Let me take a wild guess re above. Will have a look at your new article. JCAla (talk) 12:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree though with the first sentence in the lead of the article. Although HWR had the fear, and there certainly was some, ethnic violence actually decreased post-Taliban. But may come again post 2014. JCAla (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I was not happy with it either. I will end up moving it to a background section I suppose. Once I build the article up I can rewrite the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Darkness Shines/diffs

User:Darkness Shines/diffs, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Darkness Shines/diffs and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Darkness Shines/diffs during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Highstakes00 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/India, Afghanistan and Pakistan, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. When you recently edited Ethnic violence in Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uzbek (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) 10:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. 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) 22:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. 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) 11:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj

Hi Darkness Shines - sorry about pestering you about your close, but would you be willing to open Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gjekë Marinaj back up? The seven-day time limit hasn't fully expired yet, and I wanted to leave the discussion open for others who want to comment, as it has been quite a controversial AfD (chiefly because it was semi-protected, and also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes). Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thought you had withdrawn the nomination? Will revert now. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, sort of. If I was just going to withdraw it, I would have done it myself already. I just thought that if I did that, then it wouldn't be much of a debate. I'm sure there are still some objections that the !deletes could raise. Thanks for reverting it though - I appreciate it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IP: 98.94.204.96 / 98.94.211.199 / 98.94.194.37 / ThomasC.Wolfe = same user‎

Just a heads-up that you might want to keep an eye on Clemson Tigers football for User:ThomasC.Wolfe to undo your recent revert of an IP sock. ThomasC.Wolfe is a known user of IP socks to edit war and remove sourced and notable content from articles without consensus. In addition to the IP you warned today [6], this tendentious editor has also used [7] and [8] to violate Wikipedia policy and disrupt the project in the past. Your continued vigilance would be appreciated. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

Hi, though I can't prove I wasn't sockpuppeting, the IP from New Zealand wasn't me - the decision was based purely on behaviour evidence. The sources you removed are reliable, independent and adequately summarized, if you disagree then I would really appreciate it if you engage on the talk page to establish a consensus. These sources have been debated repeatedly and there has never been any consensus that they are misrepresented or inappropriate. If you're willing to review and comment on them, I welcome the input - but please don't remove good information and sources on the basis of an inconclusive sock puppeting allegation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nangparbat please do not waste my time like this, you need an account to send mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sections "US troops urinating on Taliban fighters" and "U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts" in War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article

Hello. TomPointTwo pointed me to you. At the talk page of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article I wrote the following:

Hello. Sometimes I make contributions to topics I'm interested in. One of these topics is the ongoing War in Afghanistan. Over the course of the last days I made contributions with respect to US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts in order to showcase a deterioration in Afghan-American relations and the reasons therof. The sections dealing with US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts however have been ereased. Could me someone please explain why? Because I'm only a part time contributor could me someone also say what I can do so that the sections remain in the article after their restorement?

Two questions: 1.) Why did you delete my contributions? 2.) What can I do to make these contributions a permament part of the above mentioned article? Thanks. Orion 91.42.34.23 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I responded on the article talk page already, if I am wrong feel free to revert me Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Can I somehow clarify the issue with respect to [9]? I am behind the users 91.42.52.147, 91.42.34.23 and 91.42.52.59, but not user 97.81.109.153. I know this because I recognize my entires with respect to the incomplete source details in Video of US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and my contributions to the US troops urinating on Taliban fighters and U.S. Soldiers Posing With Body Parts sections in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) article to illustrate the deterioration in Afghan-American relations. Orion 91.42.34.23 (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

IP: 129.252.69.40 / GarnetAndBlack = same user

Sorry I was unable to respond. It would have been best if you had read the talk / history pages first.[10][11] User:129.252.69.40 / User:GarnetAndBlack / User:ViperNerd / User:129.252.69.41 are all the same user. I see that you re-reverted some biased / redundant content on Clemson University related pages that User:GarnetAndBlack has been caught pushing through edit-warring / puppetry over the past several years [12][13], which he was already blocked about [14][15]. GarnetAndBlack is just trying to fool people into keeping his content there, which I see he has already done. Seems that various users have been trying to remove the actual sockpuppetry that got left on the article, not the other way around. Apologies & Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I had suspicions but not enough time to follow up, shall be a little more careful henceforth. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a little overwhelmed here. Unlike troll type users, I really don't enjoy this kind of stuff. I really do appreciate you taking the time to look at this stuff. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

• Pardon me, but I'm confused. You "really don't enjoy this kind of stuff"? Well, a look at your User Contributions page sure paints a different picture[16]. Is that what the contributions of a "troll type user" look like? GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind citing your "good faith" re-vert here: I've noticed that it's been referenced to already. [17] Best. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the link here? I'd prefer things that way. Happen to notice your edit got changed again? [18] Feel free to change it back, and add it to my report if it gets reverted again. [User:ThomasC.Wolfe|ThomasC.Wolfe]] (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry? What link were? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Did it go through? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You were the IP which posted then? If so your cleared of sockpuppetry Darkness Shines (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. But I can't believe this guy would actually stalk me to the degree to post my ip on a phony sockpuppetry report. Is there an number I can contact Wikipedia? ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you just detail stuff in my email. I feel like my privacy was violated. Thanks. ThomasC.Wolfe (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Occupy Wall Street

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupy Wall Street. 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, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re my Talk Page

Hi. Did you perchance leave a message on my User Talk Page? There seemed to be a hint or suggestion of something and then 'poof'! Nothing. Was it anything important, that i could help out with pl? Regs, Khani100 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Reverting while ignoring the open discussion on talk page

Well Darkness Shines may you specify why are you insisting to add multiple images of object (tomb) in article related to person (Muhammad Iqbal). And please specify the reason to ignore the ongoing discussion on talk page and reverting the edit here. --Omer123hussain (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Now you have self reverted I may consider it. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please justify your revert here while the issue was under discussion.--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just did. And do not come over here acting all self righteous just because you were edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I am responding here to your query left by you on my talk page, Other wise i have no interest to write on others talk page, And discussion was already open on article talk page.--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange, I do not recall leaving a query on your talk page, I do recall leaving you a warning to self revert as you had violated 3RR. See you on the talk page of the article in question. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate. 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) 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for further breach of interaction ban - filing yet another groundless SPI against Top Gun. 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 23 April 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:

And another bad block, you guys are great at these. Reporting suspected sockpuppetry is not an IBAN violation as was clarified when one was filed against me. Please unblock me so I may continue editing as this block serves not to protect the project and is in fact punitive. Elen also says I filed another groundless SPI This is the first and only SPI I have filed against the user in question. I am unsure were Elen got the idea I had filed one previously. I also do not think the accusation was groundless, anyone can look at the evidence presented. I have seen users get blocked for less on DUCK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was actually about to make the block Elen made just before she did, but she beat me to it. This SPI though was beyond a sock filing when you listed TopGun as the master (especially after the previous SPI case where a clerk said that it was unlikely to be Nangparbat), otherwise it would have been fine. This is also not the first case you have made against TopGun. Personally, I'd call it harassment, but that's me. When you can prove you can stop going after TopGun, maybe we will look at retracting the block. Your right that this is the first public SPI you have filed, but the other ones where you have included 'private' evidence have involved TopGun. (As I said below, IBANs don't reach non-public forums) And to top of the end of your appeal, the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 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.

Notice of SPI restriction

In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:

1. Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item)
2. Filing against Nangparbat
3. From using presenting evidence against established users
4. From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)

This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the history of this user and the restrictions listed above, I'd respectfully like to request that the baseless SPI this user filed against me[19] be closed ASAP. As User:MuZemike pointed out[20], this exact same report has been filed against me twice, and been rejected on both occasions. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother to file anymore then, you say I have been pretty good lately yet I am blocked for one week for filing one. Why would I bother again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, from what I recall, you and I have never really interacted before. As an SPI regular and a CheckUser I hope that this does not discourage you from ever again participating in SPI. Instead, we are asking that you carefully consider and evaluate the cases you file before you push the "save page" button. This will not only greatly reduce time spent by clerks and CheckUser's who have had to deal with your less then satisfactory requests, but will also save you future headache. If it helps, if you ever have questions regarding an SPI case that you are wanting to file, my talk page is always open. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that there is a 'not' missing from in front of 'discourage' above? The next sentence calls for it. Done. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW DQ, you say above I worked up a horrible excuse of edit warring, one of those articles was locked down due to the ongoing edit war, x was the last revert before protection. The other had five reverts of the same content in two days, that also is an edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Health insurance mandate. 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) 13:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for further breach of interaction ban - filing yet another groundless SPI against Top Gun. 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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:01, 23 April 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:

And another bad block, you guys are great at these. Reporting suspected sockpuppetry is not an IBAN violation as was clarified when one was filed against me. Please unblock me so I may continue editing as this block serves not to protect the project and is in fact punitive. Elen also says I filed another groundless SPI This is the first and only SPI I have filed against the user in question. I am unsure were Elen got the idea I had filed one previously. I also do not think the accusation was groundless, anyone can look at the evidence presented. I have seen users get blocked for less on DUCK. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was actually about to make the block Elen made just before she did, but she beat me to it. This SPI though was beyond a sock filing when you listed TopGun as the master (especially after the previous SPI case where a clerk said that it was unlikely to be Nangparbat), otherwise it would have been fine. This is also not the first case you have made against TopGun. Personally, I'd call it harassment, but that's me. When you can prove you can stop going after TopGun, maybe we will look at retracting the block. Your right that this is the first public SPI you have filed, but the other ones where you have included 'private' evidence have involved TopGun. (As I said below, IBANs don't reach non-public forums) And to top of the end of your appeal, the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 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.

Notice of SPI restriction

In my SPI clerk hat, you are being restricted from:

1. Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item)
2. Filing against Nangparbat
3. From using presenting evidence against established users
4. From filling huge SPIs with multiple editors involved (5 is a general max)

This is an indefinite restriction till you can show otherwise that you will not waste SPI clerk time with baseless cases. Your normal cases (which you have been pretty good with recently) are still allowed and encouraged. Appeal is to the SPI clerk/CU team as a whole, and I will be giving them notice of this restriction. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Modified: -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Based on the history of this user and the restrictions listed above, I'd respectfully like to request that the baseless SPI this user filed against me[21] be closed ASAP. As User:MuZemike pointed out[22], this exact same report has been filed against me twice, and been rejected on both occasions. Thanks. GarnetAndBlack (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother to file anymore then, you say I have been pretty good lately yet I am blocked for one week for filing one. Why would I bother again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, from what I recall, you and I have never really interacted before. As an SPI regular and a CheckUser I hope that this does not discourage you from ever again participating in SPI. Instead, we are asking that you carefully consider and evaluate the cases you file before you push the "save page" button. This will not only greatly reduce time spent by clerks and CheckUser's who have had to deal with your less then satisfactory requests, but will also save you future headache. If it helps, if you ever have questions regarding an SPI case that you are wanting to file, my talk page is always open. Best, Tiptoety ^talk 22:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I suggest that there is a 'not' missing from in front of 'discourage' above? The next sentence calls for it. Done. Peridon (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW DQ, you say above I worked up a horrible excuse of edit warring, one of those articles was locked down due to the ongoing edit war, x was the last revert before protection. The other had five reverts of the same content in two days, that also is an edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Request

Would someone be so kind as to let Elen know[23] that is Nangparbat. Her advice to him is of no use, he no longer has access to his original account as he does not recall the password. He will need permission to either create a Nangparbat2 account or be allowed to use one of his more recent ones to communicate onwiki. She can e-mail me if she wishes to know how to get his email. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He can email WP:BASC. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I will let his next sock know. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

{{|reason=Again, filing an SPI is not an IBAN violation, or at least that is what I was lead to believe as one was filed against myself and no action taken against the filer. Again, this block is punitive, not preventative. DQ is of the opinion that I had sexed up the SPI, "the report horribly worked up and the excuse of an edit war going on" in his words. He is mistaken in this as there were edit wars going on at both the articles in question. One was fully protected[24] the other 6 reverts on the same content in the space of a few hours[25] He also says he may lift the block when I prove I am not going after anyone, other than say I am not, nor will I go after anyone, I see no way of actually proving this? The first report was about a prolific sock puppeteer, and I voiced my concerns regarding this sockmaster and his contact with estabilished editors, I can think of no other way I may have been able to do that either. I give my word no further SPI's will be filed by me against anyone with whom I have an IBAN, which quite simply is all I can offer. I respectfully request I be unblocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)}}

My 2cts. Anyone reviewing this should take the following into consideration: There has been some interesting stuff going on lately. First, in the course of the content dispute on Pakistan there was a phishing link send exclusively to DS and me. Nothing of that sort happened to the other spectrum of the content dispute. Then, we had a new editor (Highstakes) as a SPA following around and harassing DS, until he (Highstakes) got blocked for exactly that behavior. Nothing of that sort happened to the other spectrum of the content dispute as far as I am aware. Then, more often than not, we have IPs popping up for the same reason. Out of the blue new accounts (like Agent X) come and act as if they were socks from the first edit they make(!). I would ask anyone involved in the investigative part of wikipedia to follow that closely, with an open mind and be aware of the technical and human resource possibilities. JCAla (talk) 18:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

@JCAla: I have no clue what your trying to say. @DS: Could you point us to this conclusion your making that filing an SPI is not against your IBAN? (I've looked up and down the contribution chain for you and other editors back over 4 months and up and down the archives of ANI and see nothing about 1) An SPI filed against you 2) This comment that it is not an IBAN violation. Now I also did not say that you "sexed up" the SPI, you twisted my words, I said "the evidence against TopGun is horribly worked up", not the other evidence. And to clear up the second part that was horribly worded, I was trying to say that finding the excuse of an edit war, when the times in between reverts are so high, looks like a very convenient reason to file an SPI against him, and the way you present the evidence to make it look like big time gaps were real short. Now in regards to your block, regardless if your unblocked or not, the SPI ban terms are still in affect and will be enforced. And I do echo Tiptoety though that we aren't trying to discourage you on filing. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange you do not recall it as you were e-mailed the evidence.[26] It was that one, based solely on the fact the new editor filed out references correctly. I think it was fair of me to assume that if one part of the IBAN could file an SPI then it was OK for myself to do so. I also dispute your claim that I made it look like these reverts were happening in quick succession, it was the time gaps between which made me suspicious. Think about it, if you are restricted to 1R every 24 hours, and create a sock account to help you out, would you do a revert straight away or give it some time so if your sock gets reverted a few times your turn will soon come around. It was exactly that which made me suspicious. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I remember an email (not it's context), and sorry I was looking through the cases pretty fast, I wasn't looking to spend a whackload of time looking for one case or ANI thread. So to start, I can't comment on stuff presented to me in emails, for privacy reasons, especially onwiki, unless asked to or indicated that was the intention of the user sending it to me (even then I can only sum it up). I also point out my comment here which did not point to anyone. Also TopGun when he filed said case (even if the email evidence was against you, which I can't comment on) he did not say "I think said user is Darkness Shines". You clearly went out of the way to give such a link. IBANs do not reach private emails as far as I am concerned, as they are not our jurisdiction. I am not going to give anymore comment to how I think you filed the SPI, as I can't feel the stress you may be under to get articles the right way, but I still do stand my ground as to how the evidence adds up to look like. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I just filled it the way everyone files them, I have never known anyone to give a full chronological breakdown before. One of the edit wars was spaced out, one was not. And if IBANS do not reach private emails then why was one of mine used in the justification of this block Darkness Shines (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, private emails not reaching IBANs, removed, I got caught in my own wording, i'm totally willing to admit that. Now, your SPI filed against TopGun against an IBAN is still the valid reason for this block, so why am I still here trying to consider your unblock request? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Because your a good guy? I really do not know why But you must realize the block is not really preventative at all, it's not like I am going to file another SPI is it? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SudoGhost. Thank you. Osarius Talk 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

AS much as I would love to have a giggle over there, sadly I am blocked and am unable to. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, I would be happy to "proxy" a statement for you at the SPI if you like. Feel free make one here and I will copy/paste it over there. Tiptoety ^talk 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you tips, but there is no need to proclaim my innocence Worst SPI case, ever. It should have been closed as soon as it was opened, obvious revenge attack. BTW why has McKhan not been blocked for sockpuppetry? He had 2 other accounts and used one of those for years to edit war on an article keeping it a stub and his newest one[27] was also being used to edit war. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to look at this unblock request at the moment, but I'll state for the record that the sockpuppet investigation was closed as frivolous - i.e. Darkness Shines is cleared of any sockpuppet allegations.  An optimist on the run! 17:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To do

For this[28] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Probable sock

User:Riyazulrahman probably Nangparbat[29] Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) Doing his usual copyvios[30] Copy and pasted from Refugee Review Tribunal AUSTRALIA RRT RESEARCH RESPONSE Research Response Number: IND34577 Country: India Date: 25 March 2009 this PDF Darkness Shines (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. 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) 22:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violation of SPI restrictions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. 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. Tiptoety ^talk 22:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you fucking retarded? How the fuck have I broken this[31] restriction? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge, I am not "fucking retarded", I guess anything is possible though. As for your second question which appears to be more on topic, you violated #2 which states: "Filing against Nangparbat". Did you even read it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It says EXCEPT. Read it again. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I see no such word. Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So your blind as well then? 1 Filing SPIs against well established users (guide is 500 edits, not including major sockpuppeters, except as the next item) Darkness Shines (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

And you can go over here and finish removing the copyvios, I am fucking done helping out around here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The restriction is less than clear. Item number one seems to make an exception for item 2 (in which case, of course, it shouldn't be an item). DS is a good nangparbat catcher and restricting him from filing SPIs in that case is probably not a good idea.--regentspark (comment) 22:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

"[..] you are being restricted from: #2 Filing against Nangparbat." The except means "you may file against long term sock masters with over 500 edits except Nangparbat. Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think DS violated his restriction, as I interpret it the same way he does. So I think he should be unblocked. That said, DS, you really need to calm down. Attacking the admin who blocked you is not going to get you unblocked — rather it will lead to the revocation of your talk page privs... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Will I fuck calm down, I have another bullshit block on my log now. It says EXCEPT. He is reading it completely wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking with DQ, the way he intended it to be written was how I described above. If it is really not that clear and this was an honest mistake, the block may be lifted. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think a good faith unblock is warranted here (along with a clarification on the restriction). Salvio is spot on about the calming down DS. --regentspark (comment) 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "You are restricted from: [...] 2. Filing against Nangparbat". In my view, this was not an ambiguous restriction in any sense. AGK [•] 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

DQ is saying I may not file an SPI against he sockmaster who stalks and harrases me? Are you serious? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, when DQ proposed it I read it the way DS did. Because restricting DS from filing against np is not a good idea. Most of the other editors who can recognize that sockmaster are either gone or edit only in a limited way. --regentspark (comment) 22:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

While you may have a point about that restriction not being a good one, it does not make it any less of a fact that he is restricted from filing cases against Nangparbat. Tiptoety ^talk 22:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

− (edit conflict) x3 For what it's worth, I interpreted the restriction as saying that DS was not allowed to file an SPI against any established user NOT identified as a major sockpuppeteer. However, that exception did not apply in the case of Nangparbat, in that he is also not allowed to file an SPI against Nangparbat. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) Without meaning to be a stickler for Teh Rulz, if you thought it was unfair to be restricted from opening SPIs about Nangparbat, you ought to have appealed it at the time—not ignored the restriction. If it was a genuine mistake then I appreciate that, but your edit was in blatant violation of the restriction... AGK [•] 22:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not ignore it, it says EXCEPT. Who in their right mind would stop an editor from filing an SPI against a sockmaster who stalks and harrases him all the time? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

As AGK said, that would have been something to bring up earlier. Tiptoety ^talk 23:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry I wasn't around sooner, real life took up some time, and my web browser went shit on me. I can see how the restriction could be confusing,(My new comment below this -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)) and would recommend unblock in this case (not requested -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)) as it could have been interpreted the other way, with the correct understanding known this time. The correct way to read it is the way Keilana et. al. stated above. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is no way this should have been misunderstood. If the opposite was true, then the restrictions would be in conflict with each other, causing a need for clarification. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So am I going to be unblocked or not? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it was fucking obviously misunderstood. 23:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest, since blocks are not generally punitive, a good faith unblock with a restriction clarification is in order. We can discuss whether the restriction itself is useful or not later. --regentspark (comment) 23:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

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:

This was an obvious misunderstanding. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking in view of the discussion above. This is done in the understanding that you are now aware of the meaning of the restriction and will not b filing any SPIs against NP. I make no comment on the merits of that restriction at this time, and honestly, I'm less than certain about the authority under which it was supposed to be passed, so I would encourage you to discuss that with the people involved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and I fully intend to have this idiotic sanction removed, I will not be stopped form filing SPI's against an editor who stalks and harrases me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, you are certainly welcome to try and get it removed, as far as I'm concerned, but please observe it while it's still in force. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well as I no longer file SPI's perhaps you would care to look at this? user:Cenima & User:Chozanm Same messing around on the Udayar article, Cenima kept blanking it, this one requesting speedy deletion of it. His sock Cenima6 requests PP[32] of an article which Cenima had been editing, Chozanm does the same on another article which Cenima had been blanking[33] The obvious connection here is this article Udayar, The master and socks continually blank it, or in this case nominate for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. 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) 10:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aleemiyah Institute of Islamic Studies

user:ibnedawood Sir, First of all I would like to pay thanks for you to indicate me about problem. What will I have to do for escaping this page on Wikipedia. I shall be very thankful to you if you guide me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibnedawood (talk • contribs) 14:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aleemiyah Institute of Islamic Studies

User:Ibnedawood Hi, Darkness Shines

This page was nominated in error, because there is no copyright infringement in this article. All sites relating to the institute belong to us.

Ibnedawood (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Ibnedawood

hello

how come when i added the ahbash logo it went blank and when you did it didnt? Baboon43 (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You never used a fair use licence, McKhan/AmandaParker had your upload deleted based on that Darkness Shines (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aleemiyah Institute of Islamic Studies

Hi, Darkness Shines I have added one more link in this article upon your guidance. I have to do job, in free time I do write Wikipedia. I intended to make a group of graduates of this institute to update this article but you are giving red sign in the start point how can I proceed to last word. Please remove red sign from this and give me some time. I shall be very thankful to you.

Thanks, Ibnedawood (talk) 10:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Apologies for the delay. We are ready to go now. Please join the discussion of the issues on the case talk page. Sunray (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Correlates of crime

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Correlates of crime. 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) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at Template:Pashtuns

There appears to be a pretty lame edit war in progress at Template:Pashtuns, over whether to use a picture of a girl or some script. It's mostly IPs, plus a couple of registered editors, with both sides appearing to claim consensus for their version. I've semi-protected it to stop the range of IPs, and I'm now asking the registered editors not to revert each other any further. If there is a clear consensus somewhere for either version, can someone please show us where it is so it can be judged? And if not, can someone please start a discussion on the Talk page to try to achieve one? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Lame is not the word :o) I reverted an IP there when I saw the edit war going on, I just reverted back to the status quo. Will pop over to the talk page later. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Darkness Shines. Regarding this same topic, your name was mentioned at ANI and it looks like you were never notified. Here's a link to the thread, in case you missed it: Wikipedia:Ani#Very disruptive user. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had missed that. No idea if that IP was actually a sock or not though. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Camelio

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Brian Camelio. 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, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Secular Islam Summit

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Secular Islam Summit. 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) 01:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:LaRouche movement

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:LaRouche movement. 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) 13:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

I have just encountered my first (?) of his ubiquitous socks. Is there any way of curtailing this continued abuse. Thank you.Ankh.Morpork 16:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, he is on a dynamic IP. You will soon learn to spot him though, he also uses his IP to edit war. He uses BT UK and is usually on the 86 or 109 range. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I restored your Nangparbat tag to User:Riyazulrahman which had been removed by... Nangparbat.Ankh.Morpork 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

And this matches all of the above - User:109.150.60.218, I'm going to have borrow some of your hunting gear. Ankh.Morpork 20:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, he is easy to spot, the lad is not what you would call very bright. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Fighting sock infestation

	The Nangparbat Award
	Awarded for substantial efforts at identifying the many guises of a prolific sockpuppeteer Ankh.Morpork 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that is the coolest one I have been given :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused — why do you want to withdraw the SPI for Lui2021? Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Because DS is on a SPI filing restriction. (Not a very good restriction, I'm sorry to say, but a restriction nonetheless.) --regentspark (comment) 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I should have looked at how many edits he had made before I filed, the restriction means he would have had to have under 500 edits, I guess I am getting blocked again. :o( Darkness Shines (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

ROFL, clearly the most apt award for work against this sock infestation. DS have you tried applealing against this SPI filing restriction ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. 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) 02:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mark Lyons

Hello Darkness Shines. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mark Lyons, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

thanks

thanks for watching my back [34].-- altetendekrabbe  08:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. 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) 14:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Quintana Roo. 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) 02:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

drn

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "British Pakistanis". Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Alagoas. 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) 15:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And another unblock

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:

If someone calls me a racist bigot I believe I have the right to respond in kind. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unfortunatly you believe wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a tit-for-tat personal attack don't contribute to a collegial editing environment any more than the original one did. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 16 May 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.

• Any reason in particular Nangparbat is being allowed to comment on ANI? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=492933504 Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

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:

May I be unblocked please. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looking at this talk page, I see a user who has placed a 'retired' tag -indicating that you have chosen not to edit Wikipedia any longer. Which is fine, but a confusing contradiction with an unblock request. It's fine to retire, but as a retired user, you don't really need an active account. Looking at your two requests for unblock, you make it clear that you will, if you return to Wikipedia, continue to violate the civility rule, and you feel strongly that you have a right to be incivil. That's fine, of course, as a general principle, but as you know, it isn't consistent with the way that Wikipedia's rules require editors to interact. There's nothing on this talk page that gives me any justification for overturning a block. If you decide to make another unblock request, it'll help reviewing admins if you are more specific about the reasons for the block and the reason your account should be unblocked... and if you haven't retired from Wikipedia, but are simply unwillingly blocked, you should probably remove the 'retired' banner, because it's super-confusing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:44, 20 May 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.

Unblock III

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:

Template removed, I was blocked for calling another editor a wanker. I did this due to him calling me a racist bigot. I had a few drinks and lost my temper when I saw what he had written, and said it again when he not only refused to retract his smear but continued with it. I am not a racist, and to be smeared as one is quite upsetting. I fully intend to ignore this editor in the future so I do not think this will happen again. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:54 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

Sorry DS. You're going to have to sit this one out. You've used the "I was drunk" excuse once too often and you were warned about it.

---

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.

regentspark (comment) 16:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)}}

And would it have been said at all if I was not called a racist bigot? No it would not. And the guy who called me a racist bigot did not get blocked for his completely unwarranted attack. I at least was provoked. What a joke, I get smeared and then I get blocked for reacting. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[35] Kinda obvious really. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. 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, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Australia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Australia. 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, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Mediation note

Hello! The formal mediation case you are a named party in is now proceeding to discussion on preliminary issues on the case talk page. You are invited to begin discussing on the section titled "Neutrality Considerations".

Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict

Please indicate where I had deleted any text from the last edit I did of Kashmir conflict, I had only added text. Please go carefully through the edit and the sources before deleting and be specific in editing the text where you feel the source is ambigous rather than deleting the whole edit. ThanksMechdoc (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Right-wing socialism. 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, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

hello

there seems to be an OWN issue similar to ahbash article on Adal Sultanate as user doesnt seem to accept reliable sources and keeps reverting, the user middayexpress also seems to be tag teaming with user runehelmet and they give eachother articles to put on watchlists to revert at will anything they dont like. can you help? Baboon43 (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my Internet is down for the foreseeable future, try dispute resolution or a request for comment, I cannot really edit from my phone. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to interject Darkness Shines, but I must correct these latest misrepresentations. It's actually the user above who has been removing reliable sources from the article (c.f. [36]). As for the false charge of tag-teaming (which off the bat is absurd since the other editor never even participated in the Adal discussion [37], [38]), that was likewise dismissed outright by an admin after I explained the actual situation to him in its proper context (c.f. [39]). I do, however, think that there very well might be some forum-shopping issues at this point considering the sheer number of different venues that the user has unsuccessfully brought this same issue before, only to be more or less given the same sensible advice offered above. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment. 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, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Navigation template removal

Hello DS! It looks you are on a reversion spree right now. Kindly avoid blank reverts, the template you removed didn't say those organizations are of freedom fighters. So please stop removing them. If you have some other concern please discuss. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 21:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You add a template called Kasmiri freedom movements to terrorist organisations and wonder why you get reverted, get a clue. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen the section title of that template where these organizations get a mention? --SMS ^Talk 07:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know what it said before I edited it ya. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That's good! So as far as the template is concerned it is calling them militant organizations not freedom fighters. --SMS ^Talk 10:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is entirely irrelevant, equating terrorists with freedom movements is bullshit. LeT as a freedom movement, or JeM? Get with reality. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think their aim in the end is separation/freedom, so in a way that is related. But again I don't see the template equating militant organization and freedom movement. --SMS ^Talk 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I thought we are discussing the issue here, then why those reverts? Those can amount to gaming the system. --SMS ^Talk 16:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

(out)I thought the edit summaries would give you a clue, obviously not. When reverted you ought to use the talk page, try doing that instead of posting bollock on my talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

When get reverted you need to discuss and that is exactly what I am doing here as you reverted it. And your edit summaries, sorry I prefer not to mention them here. Lets keep the discussion clean, civil and more focused on the removal of the navigation template from articles, now that the template title also got changed. --SMS ^Talk 20:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For some of the edit summaries and comments that made me burst with LOLs. Keep up the cool head and do not get discouraged, cheers ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Good to see at least one person is happy with my editing :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You Know You're Doing Something Right When People Hate You

This is true specially on wiki. just try not to break the rules, as there are hawks waiting for you to make a mistake. regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Tsang

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Donald Tsang. 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) 10:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sock alarm

Do you think the same as I do? Another case of X?! This one is pretty obvious but I bet it's on a webproxy as well. JCAla (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Either X or Nangparbat, will file a case under X, he looks more likely. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Rape of Rawalpindi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rape of Rawalpindi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape of Rawalpindi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mar4d (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. 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, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Enough is enough

OK, I've read your most recent post at ANI. I agree that TopGun has not been perfect regarding this IBAN, but that does not excuse you trying to game the system here. From what I can see of your edits, your attitude has been this: "I will edit as much as I can without formally violating the IBAN." But this is the wrong attitude. Taking as a single action any one of your edits (removing a section that TopGun made only minor changes to, prod'ing an article he's recently edited, etc.), any of these, in and of themselves, might not qualify as a violation. But your attitude as a whole is entirely wrong: it's not about "how much can I get away with?" as it is "I need to just stay away from this editor."

As such, please note that you are hereby on notice that any further gaming of the system will result in a block. No, it is not possible to draw an exact line on where something is OK and where it isn't with that. But that's precisely the point: stop jumping so close to the line. Just avoid areas that TopGun has made substantial edits to.

If he violates his IBAN in either spirit or in letter, please feel free to notify me by email, and I will handle it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

DS, remember to stay calm.[40]  :-) JCAla (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Your double standards are showing again Magog. You blocked me for a ducking vio even though I had self reverted, I have not broken the Iban and I will edit any article I see fit to. Your constant blocks of me show you ate incapable of making the correct decisions, had that ani been about me you would have fucking blocked me in a heartbeat. I commite not vio yet here you are, again fucking warming me? Bullshit. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Your work with keeping articles neutral has been brilliant. Thanks for your work. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, pity that Magog is itching to block me again though, but never mind I am sure there are more than enough editors in this topic area to ensure neutrality. Darkness Shines (talk)

Hey dude I need your email mate need to discuss some issues with certain articles and I got some interesting diffs ! MIB1989 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi. 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) 11:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your never-ending fight against vandals and POV pushers... ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle ™ 12:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very kind. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Vikram Aur Betaal

LOL I was reminded about Vikram Aur Betaal --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 14:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Baburam Bhattarai

Please advise under what pretext did you undo my post on [Baburam Bhattarai] page. I see no discussion from you on that link. My post is well sourced and well linked. You need to provide a reason before reverting back. You cannot go behind the personal whims and liking and interpretation of a single person. The facts put there about Baburam Bhattarai are well over the internet and in the minds of public opinion. So kindly provide a source before reverting back. I am putting this same post under under the talk page of Baburam Bhattarai. Just in Case you miss to read it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack of All, Master of None (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am a vandalism patroller. Upon checking the sources, it is true that the sources did state the information. However, it happened in 2003, as it was stated in the sources. Nevertheless, assumption of good faith is applicable here. Regards, Optakeover^(Talk) 18:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You have refered the user to administrator's noticeboard, which in that case, please do ignore the above. Optakeover^(Talk) 19:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hi DS! There is report concerning you here. Regards! --SMS ^Talk 09:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit - Human rights abuse Indian administered Kashmir

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The subject has been discussed on talk page.Truth4all (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not vandalism...Please understand what is Vandalism. Thanks ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle ^™ 12:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The edit has been discussed in talk page with including Darkness Shines and was still deleted by Darkness Shines citing inaccurate although the sources are verifiable and corrrect.Truth4all (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama. 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) 23:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. 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) 12:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Changing dates on Spartacus page

Hi - I noticed that you reverted some dates on the Spartacus page recently. As you have an interest in this (I assume), would you be willing to comment on a compromise position to the Spartacus BC / BCE debate on the Talk:Spartacus page? Thanks. Oatley2112 (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses. Thank you. -- Esemono (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Case dismissed, no edit warring - DS was cleaning up after a sock of a known problem user. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Longewala

Hi, I believe this might interest you regarding Battle of Longewala article. I know about wp:blogs, but no harm if you can extract information. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me 11:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, many a good source can be dug out of blogs. Shall look it over later. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be looking forward to see the article grow. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me 17:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

E-Mail

Please check your mail. :) JCAla (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at DBigXray's talk page.
Message added 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

yet another sock of Nangparbat 86.139.57.18 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) ÐℬigXЯaɣ 18:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

He must be quite bored this holiday weekend lol Darkness Shines (talk),

yes, evidently :) (also replied on my talk) --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Henryjaz another sock --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 21:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

86.182.174.123 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) Today --DℬigXray 08:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He must be off school and bored shitless, what a waste of time that was. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Good entertainment to start the day with. ;P ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• DS you strangled the Spacecowboy0 kid, he was just born and you killed him before he even spoke. --DℬigXray 11:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

An abortion would have been better but we are sadly stuck with smacking them with a brick as they come into existence :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle(thats me) likes this 12:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of Assam

The dispute has been referred to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and we are awaiting a resolution. We are unable to move forward without some intervention from a third part. The two conflicting texts are given here and here. Chaipau (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavia. 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) 01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This made my day! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, i like to put a smile on people's faces Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. 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) 13:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing mediation

Your agreement that you are willing to cease disputes elsewhere is noted. I've asked the following question: "Would participants be willing to agree on specific examples of text within articles that we could take a look at with reference to the identified issues?" [41] Shall we proceed? Sunray (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luka Magnotta

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luka Magnotta. 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) 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Chawinda

This is to inform you that you are hereby banned from editing this article for a period of 2 months, for continuing to wikilawyer your way around your interaction ban with TopGun on the article, despite constant warnings to the contrary, and multiple times being told to stop trying to cut it so close. Any further editing on your part of the article will be taken as a violation of your interaction ban, and will result in a block of you, by me. You may appeal this sanction at WP:ANI. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Given I have neither violated nor wiki lawyer anything I will obviously appeal your usual one sided bullshit ruling. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Magog, should not you copy paste this same Ban notice on TopGun's Page ? for showing no bias, (just a thought) --DℬigXray 10:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

He is incapable of that, look at the two warnings given by magog after the last ANI, see who got the blame when I had again not committed a violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

@DB, I will respond to any questions you have about this on my talk page. But it is impolite to cross-talk, so I'm avoiding it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Relax

	Please cool down
	Relax and cool down, your comments in a fit of anger and expletives will only worsen the situation, regards DℬigXray 15:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of sovereign states

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. 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) 14:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Iban violations

[42] voting to have me banned, vio 1 Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

RE Mediation proposal

By sunray. I will go along with a topic ban until mediation has concluded. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Great. :) Let's work on the sources and the mediation. After the issues (hopefully) are resolved we can keep working on some GA projects as we said earlier. Cheers, JCAla (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall I copy+paste your comment here to ANI? But, I guess, people are watching your talk anyways. ;) JCAla (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Only76 so copy it over that the mob may see it. Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I will no longer edit any article that the editor I am IBANNED with has edited first, I shall only comment on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, wasn't that already specified in the iBan to begin with? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I think they are allowed to edit the same article (regardless of who edited first), just not edit explicit content edited by the other. JCAla (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it is as JCAla says. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the way I did it? JCAla (talk) 09:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That is fine mate thank you, can you also copy across the new bit above as I wish it known this i how I tend yo approach the IBAN in future Darkness Shines (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You should put a time limit for that first. Otherwise if that becomes imposed as a rule, you might find yourself trapped. For example, imagine the editor with whom you have the IBAN edited a page let's say half a year ago and you are not aware of it because more recently he didn't edit the article and the article history is crowded. You know you will be reported immediately if you fall into that trap even without wanting it. So, you should think how to phrase this, so such thing could be avoided. But, of course, it is up to you. JCAla (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I found that in page history is a link which shows you who has edited the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Sock

[43] This is an IP sock of Lagoo sab Darkness Shines (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Continuing mediation

Would you be interested in continuing the mediation? If you were to agree to not edit the topic while mediating and mediate in good faith, I could propose this to the blocking admin. Sunray (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some Lassi for you!

	Some cool Lassi for you
	Have some and chill out! ;) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gotta admit, I misread that header at first and got worried, this popped into my head[44] Darkness Shines (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

user:109.145.226.227 Darkness Shines (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

i think a beer or two is more suitable for you :P  altetendekrabbe  08:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man, that put a smile on my face. You know me to well :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Purple Barnstar
	For continuously going through harassment by socks of Nangparbat, but still staying true to the site. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Climate change & Afghan security

Have you come across any climate change related aspects during your reading of security issues as regards Afghanistan? I'm really keen to know. AshLin (talk) 10:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some in J&K regarding glacial melt. Some due to massive deforestation in Afghanistan. What in particular are you after? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Luka Magnotta

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Luka Magnotta. 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) 14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for continual violations of your interaction ban with User:TopGun. 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. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:14, 11 June 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:

thete are no Iban violations by me outstanding, if so please show diffs. And should an adminwho just called for me to be banned be handing out a block. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Violation 1[45][46] is enough to get you blocked for two weeks. And, if we should choose to judge your by your own standards, given that you think this is a violation, then we can include another: [47] (this example was as useful for maintenance of the block as the previous comment). Should we include another week for that? I'm not even going to include the countless times I cut you slack when TopGun mentioned violations on my talk page (and which other users agreed were violations). In any case, I have no problem declining this unblock because I'm sure you'll file another request as I am supposedly biased against you in the case. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:01, 11 June 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.

Unblock

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:

Diff one and two as shown Magog are not violations as it was self reverted, which would make this block purely punitive.This is not an iban vio as Magog says[48] as it is reporting at ANI an IBAN violation and discussing IBAN violations are not a violation, they are an exemption. I have been blocked by an admin who has called for me to be banned from editing, which has now been enforced by an admin I am in dispute with on ANI. I have no IBAN violations outstanding, this block is purely punitive and needs to be overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 3:33 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

A general statement about violations without supporting diffs is not a report on an IBAN violation but is a comment on the user. regentspark (comment) 14:08, 13 June 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.

You've used up your capital for self-reverts. You cannot make an edit and then self-revert when you're reported and expect to have this continue ad infinitum. This is the fourth time this has happened. We've been more than patient. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have struck the above comments, I do not think it right a highly involved admin is coming over here to poison the well. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock III

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:

Regents park rejection is flawed. Why would I need to provide a diff to the vio I mentioned when it was in that very thread. The fact that it was seen by various admins and not acted upon left me little choice but to mention it. I was commenting on IBAN violations, that is an exemption. Again, I have been blocked by an admin who called for me to be banned before he blocked, that is entirely inappropriate. I was refused my first unblock request by an admin who I am not only in a dispute with at ANI but who has now also called for me to be banned claiming "everything is my fault" This block is purely punitive which is against the blocking policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have an interaction ban with TopGun. You reverted TopGun's addition. Seems clear enough to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:27, 14 June 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.

In all fairness, if one party is unblocked for a confirmed IBAN violation, the other party should be unblocked immediately also. Especially when both parties have had a largely equal number of vios (see Salvio's talk for more). This would be balanced. Are we balanced and fair here? We will see. JCAla (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock IV

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:

Seraphimblade has declined even though I had self reverted the violation he mentions. He has basically said the block is punitive. The violation was reverted as such there is no violation please unblock me. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The current block is for continuing IBAN violations over a lengthy period, of which the latest was just one example. I think the only way we're going to get it through to you that you really need to stop this feud is to make you sit out a block whenever you even slightly violate the ban. As such, this block is preventative rather than punitive, and I suggest you use the time while blocked to think about how you are going to avoid this very long battle of yours turning into an indefinite block or a ban from the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 14 June 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.

Unblock V

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:

Again, I have been blocked by an involved admin which is a violation of policy. The block is purely punitive as the error was self reverted, this block does not prevent any disruption whatsoever. As Dennis Brown says here[49] More importantly, it was an admitted mistake, so blocking would be less than optimal here since we block to prevent rather than punish. This was in response to a similar error were I had self reverted. I will also point out that Salvio giuliano has given editors the opportunity to self revert accidental violations. The fact that I reverted the error without complaint is proof that I knew I was fully at fault. This entire block is a violation of policy, blocked by an admin calling for me to be banned. Refused my first unblock by an admin calling for me to be banned. The same admin restores comments I have removed from my talk page so as to poison the well. There is a discussion at ANI to ban me, and I cannot even defend myself. Unblock me now. Darkness Shines (talk) 8:33 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

It's probably to late for you but go ahead and defend yourself on ANI. Magog is right about your habit of reverting and then undoing the revert so, if you do survive at ANI, don't push things. regentspark (comment) 13:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed - the excuse of "I interacted with him, but then I reverted myself, so it's OK" won't wash any more, because you keep doing it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Regent, thank you for being fair. Boing, to err is human. I have never intentionally set out to break the Iban. The last one was a stupid mistake as I had not noticed Mar4d had restored content I could not touch, he had been slowmo edit warring other content into that template for quite a few days and then added the content which got me blocked on his last revert of it. If one makes a mistake and fixes it it should not be used as a weapon against him. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the cumulative effect of things DS (and a bit of the 'boy who cried wolf'). My suggestion to you is that you stop aggressively defending yourself and instead focus on presenting an editing plan for the future. Attacking Magog or pleading unfair treatment won't work at this stage. --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, AGF and all that, and this one was just a mistake - but you really do need to be careful not to keep making such mistakes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

hi there DS! Its a shame to see that people are accusing you of pushing POV without any base. I have removed your name from Personal attack by bannned sockpuppeteer in this and this (I was shocked to see that the editor even kept such personal attack in their barnstar collection. Enjoy the burger and take care! →TSU tp* 08:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, not really that surprised that Nangparbat hands out personal attacks and barnstars :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, I reverted your addition at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents by accident, a bit of finger trouble please accept my apology. MilborneOne (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I hit rollback all the time by mistake, especially when on my phone. Smart phone, stupid user :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Tea Party politicians

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Tea Party politicians. 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) 02:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

New reply!

At least one new reply has been posted here Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Before_GA_Review.21 --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Another reply has been posted in the same page! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of modern dictators

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of modern dictators. 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) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Beacon Center of Tennessee. 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, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011 Egyptian revolution. 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) 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. 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) 09:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines/Hunting

Care to move this? I think the title to be a bit inappropriate. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really, the title is exactly what it is meant to be. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban

FYI. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So now I am confused, were is the topic ban? All I see there is a lifting of the IBAN. I have already agreed to continue mediation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

OK no longer confused as you changed the header :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Puerto Ricans in the United States. 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) 21:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

109.145.226.227 (talk · contribs · count)

Hi, I was just wondering why you weren't leaving any messages on User talk:109.145.226.227 but still reverting the user's edits as vandalism on 1995 attack on the Pakistani embassy in Kabul? Callanecc (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Because it is User:Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

... your belief (although likely right). Doesn't preclude messaging. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it does, check the IP history, he used this IP to post on my talk last time I was blocked. There are no "likely" It is him. There are no policy to give warnings to socks, nor to ones who stalk me and call me all manner of things. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Out of interest, have you reported the IP as a sockpuppet of a banned user? Callanecc (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on ANI and the IP is now blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Italy vs England

I am sorry, but England may have to go today. ;-P JCAla (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hum...I have a hunch that England will win. →TSU ^tp* 16:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nah ... grand master Buffon will keep the ball out. JCAla (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually I am not a football fan :o) So I have no cares at all over who wins. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on File talk:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. 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) 10:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

socks

This guy Special:Contributions/Ronaldchow76 (and the IP involved) may be popular . --DBigXray 10:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your GOCE Request

Hi Darkness Shines. I'm removing your request for a copy edit of Inter-Services Intelligence activities in Afghanistan from the GOCE Requests page for the time being. This isn't a reflection on the article, but we're about to start a backlog elimination drive, and I don't want to run the risk that a possibly inexperienced editor might try to take it on and might do something to disrupt the mediation. If the mediation completes successfully, if appropriate, I'm sure we'd then be happy to copy edit it for you. Regards, --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work on referencing

Where did you get that?!. Good catch. ShriRam^{Talk to}_me 16:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

One thing I am capable of, is finding decent references :o) Thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

"You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Pakistan and state terrorism."

The article is marked as needs clean up. Exactly what needs cleaning up in this article? Unnecessary tags make it sound unreliable or incomplete. However it does not appear so. If there is NPOV issues, they should be called out instead of just tagging the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.10.156 (talk • contribs)

I agree with that, those adding the tag need to state clearly on the talk page what they feel is wrong about the article. However edit warring will get you blocked. Also please sign your talk page posts with four of these fellows. ~~~~ Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that revert. Jim1138 (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the diff and thought you had been given a 3RR template. Looked at the article history, saw that you had only reverted once. Went back and checked again and oops. My apology to you and 67.171.10.156. I'll leave him an apology next. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Rape in Pakistan: Revision at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 15:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1RR

You have violated your 1RR [50], self revert please. Mar4d (talk) 17:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No I have not, I added a template, you removed it, I restored it. I will not restore your personal attack regardless. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In adding the template, you removed a part of my comment which is a revert of my edit. Self-revert or we can discuss this at the edit war noticeboard. Your choice. Mar4d (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No I did not, but feel free to make a fool of yourself[51] Darkness Shines (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail

You got two mails. :) JCAla (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

MfD

I declined your speedy for promo, but took it to MfD instead. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Cliffubba. Peridon (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election. 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) 22:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal. 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) 11:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Harassment by Sock and Co.

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Nangaphobia Sad to see users supporting and glorifying a banned sock just to harass you. Admin shopping has begun]] on Salvio's page against you, please keep your cool, regards. --DBigXray 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You may be acquainted with this gentleman Special:Contributions/86.166.57.203 Ankh.Morpork 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Already tagged him[52] :o) Twice in one day, he never gives up. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kashmir separatist movement

How long shall this continue? If this TfD also closed as no consensus or anything like that, I think we should go to WP:DRN or open a WP:RfC. What say? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It would have to be an RFC first, DRN board is a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope that will be not needed, the AfD will rub it on its own. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For your tireless and continuous work against POV pushers and those who are here only to add certain viewpoints. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, life would be a great deal easier should people actually live by NPOV and not just push one. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Issues raised about Rape in Pakistan at WT:DYK

Hi Darkness Shines: Letting you know that I've pulled the hook from the queue and reopened the nomination for further discussion since issues have been raised about it, including by the reviewer. Sorry, hope you are still online to respond. I noted you adding another reference just now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The source is fine, I have added another hook. Please let me know if i have done it correctly. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a URL to the reference (managed to get the right snippet in the window! yay!), tweaked your suggested new hook, labeled it ALT1 and dropped it to the end. I'm hoping this can be hashed out at the nomination template so it can get passed again; let me encourage you to watch and respond there. I have to go offline to sleep soon, and in any event I may have interfered enough here '-) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for POV-pushing. Given your history , you know better. The edit in question that pushed it over the line is this: [53]. The other edit listed on my talk page also played a minor part. Please take a week off to consider your editing style. Hopefully, after your unblock requests have been denied, maybe you will take heart the fact that the problem is with you, not with me (as if common sense couldn't have told you that before, me residing 15000 miles away from this conflict, both physically and metaphorically); you can yell and scream all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you've continually been POV-pushing across articles, and you know darned well what you're doing. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Has no place here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Can you specify which other edit you are referring to and your objection towards it. Also, your recognition that your interaction with DS has previously been perceived as personal requires reconciliation with "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)". Ankh.Morpork 22:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I was about to come and ask you (DS) why I shouldn't immediately block you for the same edit (which I've just reverted), but I see Magog has already taken care of the problem. There is no ignorance to plead here--this is obviously a highly biased statement, and you know it. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC) @Morporok - I have no involvement in this dispute - I rarely go anywhere near it, and I have 0% ethnicity in the area, and frankly I do not care a bit about the dispute either. DS's claim of my "involvement" stems so far as I, acting in my administrative capacity, have routinely called him out for his misbehavior, and he thinks I am unfairly biased to him. I am not. When going before a court of law, one cannot raise a ruckus about how unfair the judge is, then claim the judge has no right to hear the case because, by very nature of said complaint, the well is now poisoned and the judge is (apparently) now more likely to be biased. QED: I am uninvolved. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC) I understand that this is chapter 11 of volume 3 of an ongoing saga and my comments were made without familiarization with editorial history. Thank you for clarifying your lack of involvement in this topic area. Ankh.Morpork 23:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC) While I agree that having previously blocked an editor does not make that administrator involved, but looking over Darkness Shines's block log it appears that Magog the Ogre has blocked DS quite a few times. Magog the Ogre, do you think it might have been a good idea to get a second opinion or post to AN/I in this case? Tiptoety talk 04:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Go ahead and review it if you'd like. Having previously blocked an editor does not mean I cannot make a block again. And the fact that Darkness Shines continues to ludicrously claim that I am biased in the issue ought to deter no one. Anyone who has followed this dispute from a neutral perspective knows I've handled it both neutrally and fairly. I will not let someone continue to flagrantly disregard policy and then try to get away with it simply by calling my administrator credentials into question. FYI, all of this could have been avoided if you'd accepted the ArbCom case as I'd recommended a while back. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC) On a side note I am only a lowly ArbCom clerk, not an Arbitrator. :-) Tiptoety talk 04:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Consider the block reviewed by me too - it was unquestionably correct, and Magog is not WP:INVOLVED. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC) The block may or may not be correct in this case. But per WP:INVOLVED ("... involved administrators may have, or may be seen as having, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.") Magog is involved and should have let this be decided by someone else. JCAla (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I didn't really see Magog as having strong feelings about anything other than tackling a long-standing problem with POV-pushers from an admin standpoint. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Magog does have strong negative feelings (including about me ;-)). These have been reflected in what has been perceived by many editors as unbalanced decisions. He may or may not be a good admin in regards to wikicommons, etc. But in this content area and with these specific editors he has allowed himself to become emotionally involved. Given that many editors share this opinion, and there are diffs to back that up, he should simply leave these issues to be decided by other admins. And there are enough qualified admins around, right?! JCAla (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Well, if there's bad feelings between the two of you, then I'm not going to get involved in that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 29 June 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:

Adding academically sourced content[54] is not a blockable offence. And why am I being blocked by an involved admin who voted to have me banned from wikipedia? I request I be unblocked as I have not broken any policy's. If academic sources say G-B is occupied then so should the article we have on it, and no I did not think it that contentious given the source used. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block appears fully justified to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 29 June 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.

{ Hi Darkness Shines. As your unblock request stands now, it is likely to be quickly declined as it does not really appear to be a request. Instead it looks like more of a question directed at the blocking administrator. I'd be happy to review your case if you would present a reason based in policy as to why you should be unblocked. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 03:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I have though I know it to ba an entire waste of time. I have broken no policies here but again get blocked by an admin so heavily involved it is beyond parody. I am going to work. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You made a blatantly POV edit, and you know you did - your current block is fully justified. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So? You think it POV, it is sourced to the academic press, go complain to them about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a minute Boing, so you think the article is now neutral? With no mention of the fact the is is an illegal occupation? I know you think I was cherry picking sources, lets see Strategic Analysis Volume 34, Issue 3, 2010 DOI:10.1080/09700161003658998 Asian Affairs: An American Review Volume 22, Issue 1, 1995 DOI:10.1080/00927678.1995.9933695 The Denning law journalStrategic Analysis all say that G-B is illegally occupied. Do you not think the article should also? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You can find any number of sources to state that it is illegally occupied; however, you know as well as anybody that this is a disputed issue. In any case the article is not currently written from a neutral point of view because it doesn't mention the dispute. I'll add {{POV}} to the article and hopefully an editor with more knowledge can draft a section on the disputed status; however, it would be extreme POV for Wikipedia to blatantly state that it is illegally occupied. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you can, but those are academic ones. As was the one I used. So I am blocked for a week for using an academic source to state something which perhaps would have been better off attributed, wonderful. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

What I meant was, the fact that there are some sources that say it is illegally occupied does not mean it is illegally occupied. You can also find sources to say that it is not. Here is something that shows that it is disputed. Wikipedia should say no more and no less. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with that. Like I said below, I read this whilst researching something else, I looked at the article and was surprised it was not mentioned, so I popped it in. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, the {{POV}} tag was removed fast. If discussion doesn't start on the topic, I'll be re-adding it because I was completely unconvinced by the edit summary from the editor who removed it. The template allows for it to be placed if, in an editor's opinion, they believe it to violate NPOV. It can remain until the dispute is resolved on the talk page. I may start an RfC on the topic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

(out)Thank you for starting the RFC, I will comment over there when I am able. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock II

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:

This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in WP:BLOCK which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, WP:INVOLVED is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. I must insist I be unblocked wit ha not in the unblock that this was a very bad block. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As is the general consensus of the discussion that you have hatted, above (and which contains your first declined unblock request), you made blatant POV changes - and cherry-picking sources that support your preferred POV does not change that. It was a good block. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 29 June 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.

Unblock III

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:

This block is a gross violation of policy. There is nothing in WP:BLOCK which says an editor may be blocked for adding academically sourced content to an article. It does not matter if the edit is viewed as contentious or not, it is reliably sourced and falls within policy. Per WP:BLOCK#DETERRENT # prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia; # deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and, # encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. I do not see any reason there for this block, or does the heavily involved admin who was asked to comment on a content dispute believe that adding academic sources meets any of the above reasons for a block? There are no reasons within policy for this block. There is a reason within policy for it to be lifted, and that is the block was issued by an admin who only a week ago was demanding I be banned from editing, WP:INVOLVED is quite clear on this "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors)," I have brought him to ANI and he has asked ofr me to be banned. He is fully involved and this block is a violation of that policy. Adding academic content to an article is neither disruptive nor is it pushing a POV, it is stating the facts. Re BSZ refusal, I did not cherry pick a source at all, I came across that whilst researching for something else. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This has been looked over by a number of people now, and there appears to be a clear consensus that the edits in question were very clearly in violation of NPOV, and that the block itself was reasonably within administrator's discretion. This is especially true in light of your history of blocks, several of which have been for edit warring. Note that the administrator policy states: "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." This appears to be the case here, and so your request is declined. While there appears to be some dispute as to whether or not Magog was or wasn't the right person to place the block, the block itself has been found to be appropriate by several independent editors and thus is a moot point in considering appeals. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 20:25, 29 June 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.

Just a couple of comments from an uninvolved admin: in general, blocks are issued for behavioural issues and not for mere content disputes; however, to consistently push a point of view on an article or a set of articles can become a behavioural problem to be dealt with through sanctions. Now, those edits were indeed problematic; personally, I'm not sure I'd have blocked, but I can see how the block is reasonable and grounded in policy and do not want to second guess an admin who is legitimately using the discretion which goes with the tools. Then again, I must admit that I don't particularly like the fact it was Magog who imposed this block. I don't think he's involved, but, speaking of appearances, Magog does not give the impression of being entirely neutral with regard to Darkness Shines, as he was arguing for DS's ban a couple of days ago. I'm not saying Magog is not neutral, I haven't really examined his actions regarding DS and TG, but admins should not only be neutral but also appear to be. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Salvio. In my opinion this is a very poor block. The editor has inserted two apparent POV statements but has neither edit warred nor engaged in any sort of tendentious editing regarding these edits. I would have no problems with DS being blocked for something like repeatedly nominating Template:Kashmir_separatist_movement for deletion - a pointy and disruptive move imo - but this? As Salvio says, an admin must appear to be neutral and that appearance is missing. Addendum: Looking at this a little further, this is even worse than I thought. Magog is essentially blocking DS for inserting sourced content into an article with the rationale that the content is POV. Perhaps it is, but admins are not supposed to be making decisions over content but rather over behavior. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. He was inserting an obviously partisan statement as if it was an indisputable fact. Doing so, even under the pretext that the statement is based on a reliable source, is obviously unacceptable – after all, being reliably sourced is not the same thing as being neutral. The unacceptable nature of this edit was so obvious it should have been recognizable to any reasonable observer who is familiar with Wikipedia policy. As such, this edit displayed not just a simple failure of neutrality in the sense of a pure content issue, but a failure to seriously strive for neutrality – which is a conduct issue and blockable disruption in itself. It is absolutely within the remit of administrators to assess such behaviour as part of their general assessment of an editor's conduct when making a block decision. In fact, we should do that far more often. Failure to strive for neutrality is blockable, so this was a good block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The insertion was such a violation of NPOV that I support the block; however, is the duration appropriate? I understand that this editor has a history of blocks and trouble caused in Pakistan related articles, but I think the fact that the issue was inadequately mentioned to begin with is a defense. Had the article been written from a neutral point of view, this issue wouldn't have occurred. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, FP, DS has not edit warred or even argued about the edits. The very nature of Wikipedia requires editors to insert material into articles and we block only if there is disruption in the form of edit warring or tendentious editing and we, as admins, can't go about unilaterally blocking people because we think a particular edit is NPOV. What this block is asking DS to do is to clear every edit before he makes it. Not very practical to say the least. If there is the sense that DS is a committed POV-only editor, then go for an RfC/U or something. A block for something like this is way beyond the brief of an admin. --regentspark (comment) 18:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, I wouldn't have made the block, but my support is in that having just been through a discussion at ANI and having a history of contentious contributions to articles relating to Pakistan, Magog the Ogre had a reason to find this disruptive. In any case, I strongly feel that the block has served its purpose and the continuation of this block is strictly punitive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree with this block. DS do shows a history of edit warring, but as of my knowledge he has been never blocked for adding POV statements. Given the current state of the article, I would not consider that addition a good reason for a one week block. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a substantial block for POV pushing should be proceeded with a preemptive warning especially as the blocking admin referred to a previous edit that contributed to his decision. Can somebody link to the preceding "streams of requests to stop"? This also appears to be DS's first block for this kind of infringement and I consider the duration somewhat excessive. Ankh.Morpork 16:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

FPaS, you were also calling for me to be banned a week ago, I would appreciate your not commenting here again. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ankh, I have been commended by an editor who has no part in these articles not the disputes which are involved in them[55] I strive to use the best of sources, and to be as accurate to them as possible. Everyone will make the occasional mistake with sources, blocking an editor for adding content sourced to the academic press is wrong plain and simple. Magog is not only involved, he has blocked me based on a content dispute which he feels is not neutral. If he felt it was not he should have raised the issue here or on the article talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[56] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

reported the IP at ANI for you --DBigXray 14:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

&Hi. When you recently edited Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uri (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) 16:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge sections to say thank you to you both. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblock IV

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:

As before, this block is a violation of policy. And you cannot say there is a consensus on this talk page to uphold the block when two admins commenting say it is a bad one, one admin says the block is now punitive, and the other FPS has asked for me to be banned from editing Wikipedia a week ago. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you're going to be so uncivil as to tell even your supporters to "grow a pair," I certainly have no confidence that unblocking you will result in less disruption rather than more. It also appears, from Hersfold's note, that you've misrepresented the discussion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:55, 5 July 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.

Just a note, unless I missed something I'm the only one who mentioned it being punitive at this point. For the record, my comments have all been non-administrator observations. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I fully realize that and did not mean to infer anything. I am pointing out the comments made above by administrators based on the comments on the last decline. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well if we're "counting votes," then, the way things stand on this page right now...

• 2 have said that your edit was reasonably blockworthy and Magog should not be considered involved (Boing! said Zebedee, Future Perfect at Sunrise)
• 4 have said that your edit was reasonably blockworthy (no comment on involvement) (Qwyrxian, Ryan Vesey, Nick-D, me)
• 3 have said that your edit was reasonably blockworthy, but Magog was involved and shouldn't have been the one to block (Tiptoety, JCAla(?), Salvio giuliano(sorta, could go on the top row))
• 0 have said that the block was inappropriate because Magog was involved
• 3 have said that the block was inappropriate because the edit wasn't blockworthy (Regentspark, Vibhijain, AnkhMorpork)

So that's 3 that say you shouldn't be blocked vs. 9 that feel the block was appropriate to some degree. Further, none of those opposing the block are doing so on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED - Regentspark feels it's a conduct vs. content issue, Vibhijain felt that one week was excessive for a "first time", and AnkhMorpork felt you should have been warned first. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• The block is inappropriate both because not only does Magog appear to be involved but also because DS - never blocked before on such grounds - was merely blocked for missing to attribute in this particular case and there can be established no pattern.

Certain standards are not equally applied to all editors involved in the topic area. Far worse very recent occurances (than DS's supposed failure to attribute an academic source) by other editors in the topic area were not sanctioned with a block (this can be proven with diffs if necessary). Salvio wrote above, he wouldn't have necessarily issued a block in this case. In light of recent other issues and how they were dealt with, the block is simply not appropriate and missing a balance. Everyone should be treated equally, which won't happen if an administrator is emotionally involved.

This was the first time that an administrator has taken action against DS citing "pov-pushing". He should have been given a warning first, but not a single sentence to DS preceded the block. This is primarily a content issue.[57] In content issues DS's contributions have been described by an uninvolved editor: "I'm impressed by the quality and impartiality of the sources, the fact that preview is available for most of them, and also by the fairness of the way the sources are representated here."[58] DS has worked hard to further the mediation going on in this topic area by presenting dozens of reliable sources to work with, thereby striving to improve neutrality and factual accuracy, while the editor reporting DS for this occurance didn't even show up once in the content discussion of the mediation.[59] This displayed an isolated occurance in the sense of a pure content issue, and as of now there can be established no pattern for DS to not strive for factual accuracy on wikipedia. In light of there being no pattern and the missing balance of the block with regards to other recent occurances in the topic area, the block should be lifted. JCAla (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, this was clearly a content dispute, when the concerned admin found the attributed content inappropriate and issued a block. The whole WP:DR process was skirted and a ban for a week was issued straightaway simply by a comment from the other party on Magog's talkpage. The fact that the article was biased is already clear and this issue is being discussed on the Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan by several authors who agree that the article needs to mention the issue. The edit on the basis of which DS was blocked was in no way disruptive, and it is certainly against WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. I hope the admin community will judge the incident in an neutral way and lift the block accordingly--DBigXray 12:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

IP changing talk page comments

[60] Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Question for Magog

Point made
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If someone would be so kind as to copy this over to his talk. You have blocked me for what you thing is a POV edit. However I was accurate to the source. So question, what do you think of this edit[61] Given the source actually states "For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists." So in one year and one alone according to the newspaper article it was reported that the security forces killed more civilians than terrorists, Mar4d's edit makes it look like this has been the case all along. Is that neutral? Is that accurate to the source? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC) If you honestly do not see what's wrong with your edit, then I see no recourse but to take you to the community noticeboard or arbcom once your block is finished. And as for your question, reliable sources is an entirely different policy than NPOV. And you know that, because you've quoted it before. Anyway, your question is WP:NOTTHEM. If you continue to pretend like you don't know any better and act like your edit was in any way justified (despite the fact that even those calling for unblock above do so not because your edit was justified, but because they don't believe in blocks for POV-pushing), then I will be forced to ask for a topic ban for you once your block is finished, either by Arbcom or by the community. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC) We are not talking about my edit. You were asked by an editor for an opinion in a content dispute, then blocked me. I am asking you the same question which you totally ignored. Which is exactly what I expected. Never post here again. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well I misunderstood the nature of your question then (I thought you were trying to leverage it to get yourself unblocked, my fault). No, that edit was not nearly as bad, as it was appropriate for the context (which yours certainly was not), and didn't have a negative-yet-unprovable term like "illegal" thrown in for good measure (a sovereign state cannot commit an "illegal" action by very definition of the word). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Which proves you know little of these matters. A state can commit illegal actions. East Timor was illegally occupied. "State crimes cover ups, corruption, disinformation, unacceptability and violations of domestic and international law." Of course we have the Illegal occupation of Latvia And the other Baltic states.Dissolution, Continuation, and Succession in Eastern Europe p14 Namibia was illegally occupied by South Africa. Sourcebook on Public International Law p216 A sovereign state can, has and will carry out illegal actions. Extraordinary Rendition is illegal under international law. The US can be prosecuted for having done it. The Imperial Presidency and the Consequences of 9/11: Lawyers React to the Global War on Terrorism p261. How any man can think the state cannot carry out an illegal action is beyond me. And I told you not to post here again, I meant that. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Can only second what DS wrote about illegal acts by the state. Recommend to read "General theory of law and state".

2) This sentence, added by the editor who reported DS at Magog's talk, applied to the whole time span of the Jammu and Kashmir conflict (the context does not single out the year 2010):

"The Indian security forces have killed more Kashmiri civilians as compared to human rights abuses which occurred at the hands of rebels."

has been described by Magog as "appropriate" to summarize this source:

"For the first time since insurgency started in Jammu and Kashmir in the late 80s, more civilians have been killed by security forces than terrorists. ... This sudden twist in the reality of Kashmir should weigh heavily in their minds as the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues ... in 2008... out of the total of 147 civilians killed in the year only 57 died in actions by security forces. The rest of the killings, 90, were in terrorist actions. In 2009, of the total 83 civilians killed in the state, only 11 had died in actions by security forces. But the figures of 2010 till date [article date: September 2010] show how significantly the situation has turned away ..."

Now, consider what the same source in a different article proclaims about the whole 21 year period (probably well-known to the editor):

"TOI accessed Jammu & Kashmir government documents ... Here's what the data says. In the last 21 years, 43,460 people have been killed in the Kashmir insurgency. Of these, ... are ... 13,226 civilians killed by militants, 3,642 civilians killed by security forces ..."

One isolated occurance of a failure to attribute an academic source by DS brought about this whole drama. But applying statistics (provided by one source) for one single year (2010) in a generalizing manner to a 21 year period whose statistics (according to the same article, and concretely elaborated on by the same source in a different article) show the exact opposite as the statistics for the isolated year 2010 is "appropriate"? JCAla (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

On sourcing with Ryan

Also a waste of time, RP says this block is against policy, yet fails to act, grow a pair
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ryan, this source which you presented to say the occupation is disputed also says "However, following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Pakistan occupied the territories to the north and west of the cease-fire line and divided the territory into the Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) and Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) in the south" So even your own source which says it is disputed states as fact that it is an occupation. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Um, DS. The act of "occupying" and an "occupation" are very different things. India, for example, "occupied" Goa in 1961, but one would hardly call India's administration of Goa an "occupation". --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC) Context is everything, "However, following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, Pakistan occupied the territories to the north and west of the cease-fire line and divided the territory into the Northern Areas (Gilgit-Baltistan) and Azad, Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) in the south." They occupied the area during a war of conquest and never went home at the wars end. But as I said above to Ryan, I have no issues with attribution nor with saying that Pakistan disputes this. I believe I have shown you already I am wiling to compromise on the RFC at Rape during the Bangladesh liberation war. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[62] undoubtedly Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat III

[63] Darkness Shines (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat IV

[64]Not 100% sure, perhaps an admin can look at his IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, but I am also not much sure. Lets see if an admin can check him out. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

V, why did you report this IP[65] as a sock of Nangparbat? Different service provider to Nang & Nang would never revert TG[66] let alone call him a vandal. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have used some common sense. ;) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nangparbat V

[67] Exact same edit as a previous sock[68] Darkness Shines (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Accounts blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Republic of Ireland

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Republic of Ireland. 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) 12:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration clarification. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Amendment request: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan 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/Clarification#Requests for Clarification;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello. While there have been several users involved in the edit-warring on the Maret Ani and Kaia Kanepi articles, and I just noteced that you as well blindly reverted on those articles. However, you are restoring Estonia as country of birth (which clearly states it restored its independence in 1991) as country of birth for people born before that.

There is a widely accepted consensus to use historical accuracy for place of birth in biographies (exemples George Washington or Adolf Hitler) in oposition to modern-day political entities, so I beleave your revert goes againt the consensus. There should be an effort to discuss the special case for Estonia if there is a need for that, however in the meantime I don´t find appropriate for users to edit-war over that. Not sure about the reason behind your revert, I supose you thought you were reverting vandalism, I hope I helped to clarify a bit the situation. Anyway, best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney. 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) 01:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident. 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) 14:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Random header

Hello. My name is Park Cho Rong! Excited to be here! :) Bakcholong (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)bakcholong

Please comment on Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan. 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) 03:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident. 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) 16:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools. 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, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Salvio giuliano's talk page.
Message added 10:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1947. 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) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

The beer was nice!

I've got protection on my talk so they can't really get near me! Thanks for cheering me up! TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC) has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!

---

Spread the peace of doves by adding {{subst:Peace dove}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Please comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Political activities of the Koch family. 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) 05:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Rape in Pakistan

I feel that the lead needs some changes, is a concern in the international human rights and women's rights communities, particularly since the case of Mukhtaran Bibi in 2002. Rape is always a matter of concern, it cannot be only since 2002. I have not yet come up with a good phrase to replace it, may be it can be written like the prevalence of rape got widespread attention internationally since the case of Mukhtaran Bibi in 2002 Let me know your thoughts. --sarvajna (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

if widespread has POV issues, got international attention can be used --sarvajna (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Changed it a little [69] what do you think? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, I will get back to you in a hour or two. Thanks --sarvajna (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Macclesfield Bank. 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) 18:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:Kashmir conflict.
Message added 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Incarceration in the United States

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Incarceration in the United States. 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) 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkness Shines. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheStrikeΣagle 12:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

Any suggestion for this? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Have added a little, shall add more as time allows. You do know it will nominated it for deletion as soon as it hits mainspace right? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ya I know. Some guys never get tired. ;) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There's nothing there that's encyclopedic ... some aspects may belong in the ISI article, but nothing worthwhile on its own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you tell why it is not "encyclopedic"? ISI activities in Bangladesh have been in discussion many times, which make the topic eligible for its own article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Too many "alleges". A fork that contains allegations and quotes a couple of people could be perceived as a POV fork. Such material is best included in the main article itself. --regentspark (comment) 19:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. 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, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tibi

As you one that reverted me please explain to me how what it was misrepresentation here is the source [70] and here is the relevant quote "In Islam, freedom of faith conceded to others applies only to Jews and Christians, but it is a limited freedom and attached to the lower legal status of dhimmitude, or believers viewed as inferior to Muslims. By modern legal standards this is a violation of the human rights-based freedom of faith, rather than a variety of tolerance as commonly seen".What is the proper way to introduce it?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)