User talk:Darkness Shines

Your opinion

Hello again,
Two days ago, an editor called Anglo-Araneophilus popped up out of nowhere on Talk:August 2013 Rabaa Massacre. Since then all he did was to attack me, and honestly it's starting to get on my nerves, but I usually try my best to avoid engaging with trolls. However, if you take a closer look at his comments, everything suggests that he has been "studying" me since I started editing here nearly a year ago. He even said it himself: "Fitzcarmalan, I'm watching your work here since nearly one year now." If true, then I find it very surprising that he never attacked me even once before if my contributions provoked him that much.
I personally suspected Hans Franssen in the beginning, but then I realized the latter geolocated to the Netherlands, while this one is obviously either German or Turkish. Some editors here have considered me their "opponent" (most of them were socks), but as far as I know, I can remember them all. I don't think there's anyone left other than Mr.skylimit, whom I suspected of being Franssen's sock, due to this, but later turned out to be unrelated by CU results. Problem is, I noticed Anglo-Araneophilus had a slightly different writing style and more advanced English skills than both Mr.skylimit and Franssen. Do you think I enough evidence to open an investigation? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me look into it, will ping you tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far, he id from Germany, or at least is there at the moment, and he does not speak Arabic. He has been on de.wikipedia since at least 07, and he is active on commons, he has a global account and so I do not think he is a sock. Will look a little more. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have another problem now, but this time it concerns me. Several IPs showed up on the same discussion and all are clearly from the same editor. My IP address also starts with 197 (here), but I only used it once when I forgot to log in. They all offer the same arguments as mine and most of the time they ping Usaeedi, an editor whom I filed an SPI against a while ago resulting in his sock, Qjahid, being blocked. It is true that the sock is behind all the mess we're having there now, but I find it strange that an anonymous IP would know about this, considering IP editors are most of the time inexperienced. Two of them have similar edit summaries as mine.[1] [2] Yes, I am technically showing you evidence that would make anyone point fingers at me. You yourself would think it is ducky and I can't blame you. I first thought it was an attempt to make me look like a sockmaster, but I find it somehow unlikely because their comments are too supportive of mine and some of them are constructive. Even if nothing was meant by that, it is becoming highly disturbing to me because we are both having a dispute with Anglo-Araneophilus, and I have just politely asked one of the IPs to consider creating an account, but I don't know how long it will take. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fitzcarmalan: I would not worry about it, the fact that two people from Egypt having the same ISP and who share a similar POV is hardly uncommon. This is either a piss poor Joe job, or just coincidence. I also see differences in the style of writing. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My recent copy-edit

I felt that some of the lead material added by you recently fitted better in the legal section. I also pointed out in the lead that ICTY has indeed defined war rape as a crime that could amount to genocide. Please consider my copy-edit as just a suggestion. Cheers, Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 00:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not right, the ICTR defined rape as genocide in 98, which trial of the ICTY are you referring to? Darkness Shines (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I based that assertion on the following sentence from the legal section "In 1993 the ICTY defined rape as a crime against humanity, and also defined, rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence as international crimes which constitute torture and genocide", sourced from Barberet 2014, p. 111. I verified that source and it reads "It was not until 1993 that the statute of the ICTY included rape under its definition of crimes against humanity. Rape, sexual enslavement and sexual violence were fully considered international crimes and could amount to torture and genocide". I don't know which other way to interpret this source other than the ICTY having defined rape as a crime that could amount to genocide, which also seems to be your interpretation when you added it to the legal section. Please correct or rephrase if wrong. Cheers, Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 10:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are reading it wrong, "could amount to" is not defining rape as genocide, it was not legally defined as genocide until 98 during the ICTR trial of Akayesu. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we then clarify that sentence in the legal section? Anyways, I am surprised to see that the verification of the Ferguson source failed since I know that it was referenced by a reliable editor. Do you know if the book is available online or do you have a hard copy? Cheers, Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification to come, still a lot of work to do before we try for GA status. I searched the Ferguson source on GBooks and Amazon, only one part of the content cited to him was there from what I can find, will add sources for the other bits though, ain't hard to find them. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

Please don't go past 3RR at Jodie Foster. I don't want to see you blocked. Binksternet (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rape during the Rwandan Genocide

The article Rape during the Rwandan Genocide you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rape during the Rwandan Genocide for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news about a cruel topic! I tried good news on Ukraine, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that article the other day, you mentioned it on Dennis`s talk page if I remember correctly. I thought it was pretty damned good. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. No GA but presentable for DYK. It's the result of quite an unusual collaboration, did you see that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You expanded it with Pigsonthewing, so what's unusual about him?

Darkness Shines (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, see? - Unusual about Andy: a lot ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too Big

Don't you think the synopsis is too big and needs to be shortened--Enterths300000 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on it, but I figure you are a LanguageExpert sock given your editing of bollywood articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not LX . But he will come back or he already exists as some other sockpuppets . And if he changed his residence then it's difficult to catch his socks--112.79.39.46 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zordanlighter? I know he had experience with LX. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit of International Law and the Gaza War

You cited no reason for your deletion of my edit. What WP rule have I violated, other than adding information others would rather not see? Brownwn (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought that obvious, you have no consensus for your additions, and you are edit warring to boot. Like I said, take it to the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the heads up on the possible sock - and apologies for not replying earlier. Seems to have given up. Dougweller (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I use sources in English. This BBC and HRW this may not be a bad source. I also use good media with reference to the BBC and HRW.

[3] + [4]

According to Ukrainian data, 250 civilians were killed in eastern Ukraine since the beginning of the military operations.[289] OSCE observers left Lugansk for security reasons.[290] [291][292][293][294] Here I used the same sources. they ssylayutsya Ukraine. and then they found a month - good. 89.105.158.243 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you used are mostly junk, so I have removed them again and copyedited the stuff from HRW. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mediolanum

Mediolanum is back on the Potential superpowers and Superpower articles as Gladio4772 and Arnitxe. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supersaiyen312: Why have you not reported them to SPI? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Stay strong, friend. Don't lose your cool in the face of stupidity.-- MarshalN20 ^Talk 19:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On NATO and Vietnam

Why in the hell did you remove me edits on the Vietnam war? Seriously? The Warsaw pact member nations where involved in Arms support as well as finances and even military adivsors. And you removed important ones such as East Germany my initial plan was to add every WP member nation except Albania. So tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarriorofShiism (talk • contribs) 17:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because they had nothing to do with the conflict, for christs sake man, you added NATO. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing my pages

I am not sure what review means, but there is a green check mark beside it so I guess it is a good thing. Investigator Fred (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

@Supersaiyen312: No I don`t. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it didn't go through. This isn't the first time this happened actually. I also checked the "send me a copy of m message" box and it didn't, so that is my indication that it did not go through. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]