User talk:Darkness Shines/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 02:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Would someone be so kind to write thank you across to Malik's talk page for me? Darkness Shines (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat

[1] Please revert and block. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I reverted few of them, I just felt that the rest can stay.-sarvajna (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. I'll let others handle the reverts. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys, if any passing admin feels like unblocking me it would be appreciated, working on articles offline is a pain But for now, a nice cold pint awaits me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2013 (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:

Purely punitive, I already said I was wrong in what I had said. Darkness Shines (talk) 4:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I'm going to decline this Darkness per Dennis above. While I think two weeks is excessive for this sort of thing, I think you have to throw yourself at the blocking admins mercy if you want to be unblocked earlier. If not, enjoy the chilled (you can't be in England!) beer again and again. regentspark (comment) 22:28, 28 May 2013 (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.

Quite clearly not punitive - it's protecting the project from you going off and calling people nationalists and/or pricks. We have a concept of escalating blocks - as you well know - to prevent repeat offenders. Clearly, longer protection is needed since this keeps happening again and again and again. If this was the first time, you might be forgiven quickly (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, DS, I modified your 'awareness' note here. If you preferred the original wording, let me know and I'll revert. --regentspark (comment) 00:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

That's fine mate. Re your unblock notice, I am not about to beg to be unblocked it has been three months since I last lost my temper and cussed someone out so the block is obviously punitive. Personally I thought I had improved upon my demeanour a great deal since I flipped at andy. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that two weeks is excessive. Escalating blocks should be applied only when incivility is used to harass or intimidate which was not the case here. 24 hours would have been more appropriate but, as with everything, there are differing opinions on how to deal with the f word and the p word so ....!

That and the fact Bwil is not my biggest fan Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, are you suggesting that I have something against you, or are actually holding some form of grudge? I cannot fathom where a lie bizarre concept like that would come from (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course not, it's a joke. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

In view of the fact you called me a liar above (you wrote the strike same time as you did the post, so it is obvious what you meant) and now seem to think my pointing out a sockpuppet, section blanking and asking someone to say thank you is "distasteful" then I figure you do not have a high opinion of me at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have already said I was wrong and am not about to fly off the handle again anytime soon, can I at least be unblocked and allowed to work in userspace till such a time as an admin says I may return to mainspace? I would also appreciate the chance to rebut the ridiculous accusation of sockpuppetry which is being made against me. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is a good deal of truth in what you say, and I have no reason to think that the disruptive behaviour will continue now. However, we have to consider not only of now, but of the future. Looking at the history of the incident, I see that it was not just an unfortunate reaction on the spur of the moment. In the first instance, it was more than one incident, involving more than one other editor, but also, and more importantly, when your actions were criticised, you persisted in your unconstructive attitude, and, even when given more than enough opportunities to cool down, you chose to continue being defiant, uncivil, and contentious. In view of your history, I do not think that it would convey the right message to show you that you can repeatedly push until you are blocked, knowing that each time you will either be given a very short block, or else the block will be retracted or shortened, provided that you say after the event that you won't do it again "anytime soon". It is more likely to protect the project in the long run to let you learn that such behaviour will lead to a block which will stick, as that may perhaps encourage you to stop and think before the situation reaches the point of a block. For that reason, I think that in this case escalating blocks are appropriate. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2013 (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.

Fair enough, would you be so kind as to remove these personal attacks which have again been restored. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Best wishes from me for your unblock request. I shall be available for any cooperation, any to do task to aid you In Sha Allah. Let's build the encyclopedia more. Best of Luck again! Faizan 15:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Lets forget the harsh memories and lets start a new era. I regret if I hurt you by even mistake(Whatever I know I don't hurt). Faizan 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, nom nom nom. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Faizan 15:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you plan to come around to my place and kick me square in the nuts I do not see how you can hurt me I really should not have cussed you out, sorry about that. BTW a great deal of content has been blanked [2] Nobody seemed to have noticed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. No worries! Faizan 15:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am currently blocked in case I lose my temper, or it is to "teach me a lesson" Either way it is punitive. As I said above, I am not about to lose it and start cussing people out any time soon, and to promise to never do so again would hardly be believable, I lose my temper at times, and when I do I get a block. Two weeks is excessive for losing my temper, and the first time to have done so in about three months, especially after I had already said I was wrong in cussing out Mrt. Darkness Shines (talk) 9:35 pm, 31 May 2013, last Friday (2 days ago) (UTC+7)

Decline reason:

Blocks are preventative and not punitive and DS' history appears to demonstrate that previous blocks have not been successful in preventing behaviour that is not within the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. JamesBWatson sums up well in the previous denied unblock request, and I concur that not only should this block be allowed to run its course, but that further behavioral lapses will be met with increasingly longer block periods. In the worst case scenario, DS may even have to accept an indef block in the future. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2013 (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.

I have sometimes blocked myself when I feel I am about to lose my temper, and it works like a charm. Cussing out Mrt. is a very bad thing to do and you should know better! But yes two weeks is excessive, especially given that Mrt3366 is consistently asking for that kind of response.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone asks for it does not really excuse my giving it to them, problam is since Mrt used a racial slur against another editor my patience with him has been running on empty. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is despicable, even for my standard.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It was despicable - and should have been dealt with in early April when it happened, then forgotten about unless repeated. Dredging up 2 month old offences to excuse a current behaviour of your own? Really? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Issues with understanding what I wrote? Where in my post did I say this was the reason for what I said? I said my patience with him has been running on empty since then, his denial of pograms and other POV pushs was what made me lose my temper. And it is actually a past behaviour of mine, not current as it happened a week ago, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I give you credit for having a stronger command of the English language that you just showed ... care to re-read/re-parse? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry but which part do you not get? Mrt said something he ought not have, since then I have had little time for his POV pushing and his flat out denial of there having been pogroms in India caused me to lose my temper. Seems clear enough to me. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with DS, I solemnly support an unblock. MrT should also take care, especially while dealing with Subcontinent related articles. Faizan 06:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung's decline

or the record, I disagree with Kudpung's statement at the unblock request. Blocks are not meant to be punitive and should be used only when an editor is being disruptive. Merely using an f word or p word, or calling someone a nationalist is disruptive only when it is used to harass or intimidate. In this case, Mr. T and DS have a history of give and take and there is no question that there is no intimidation or harassment. The block itself was a bad idea and wouldn't have happened if DS had fessed up immediately, two weeks is way too long for something like this, and talking about a series of escalating blocks ending up with an indefinite block is administrative overkill. Just because we have the power doesn't mean we have to use it. --regentspark (comment) 13:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that RP, I still think I could be unblocked to work in userspace and not touch mainspace until such a time as the block has expired or an admin says I may. That would hardly kill anyone would it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

To do

Recovered files show Modi complicit in Gujarat pogrom Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1971 Bangladesh genocide moved against a hard won consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Dude no, The genocide took place in East Pakistan right? Obviously after the formation of BN, the Pak Army had surrendered, then how even after the secession, Pak Army could massacre Bengalis?. I expect a mature attitude from you in this aspect. Ask those Biharis murdered in the conflict, why even a mention was not there in the lead about them? Due to their cheap blood? Faizan 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

We go by common name, and the consensus was for the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. If you wanted to move it you should have done a RM. But the article does require a lot of work, if I ever get unblocked that was third on my list. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:44, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I did a technical one, the discussion which you are citing is on another perspective. I am concerned with the territory, not the atrocities. The fact is that the genocide of the Bengalis and Biharis took place on East Pakistan. As usual, the territorial title should be assigned. Faizan 06:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter, once unblocked I will move it back and you can do a RM. Read WP:COMMONNAME. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I will pray for your unblock Faizan 06:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

So much for prayers. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Nangparbat again

[3] Darkness Shines (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

That IP's contributions are constructive. Why you see Nangparbat everywhere? Faizan 08:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

even the location seems certain DS....UK! ;) Strike Σagle 08:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan, I know it is him cos of this. And I do not see him everywere, only where he is. You can let the edits stand, or not. Strike, no doubt at all this is Nang Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Haha, now I see why Faizan asked what he did, he gave Nang a cookie and asked him to create an account. Do not worry Faizan, he creates accounts all the time Darkness Shines (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Faizan 09:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request again

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:

Two weeks for losing my temper for the first time in three months is excessive. I have said I was wrong and this block is not preventing any disruption, all it is preventing is my expanding and creation of content. I request I be unblocked so I can get back to content creation. Darkness Shines (talk) 9:12 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Editor has expressed remorse and recognized reason for block. Continuing the block would be punitive at this point. regentspark (comment) 14:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)DS, the block is justifiable not because you lost your temper or said a 'bad thing' to Mrt but because you did that and then tried to justify it on ANI. I agree it is excessive and I think the application of escalating blocks and statements about indef blocks is overreaching. If you modify your block request with the right words (I'm not going to tell you what to say), I'll unblock you. But please note that the block itself was justified. --regentspark (comment) 13:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I know the block was justified, I never said it was not. I was a twat and got what a twat usually gets. I think it too long, given I have not lost my temper for months. I was wrong, I admitted it, hell I said on AN I was wrong to call him a prick. I have no idea what to write here, apparently admitting fault is not enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You said The block is purely punitive in that it is being kept in place to "teach me a lesson". The block wasn't purely punitive (though keeping it on might now be). But, I'm not going to get all semantic on you. As long as you recognize that the block was justified, we're ok. Since you say that it was, I'll unblock you. But, be careful in future. As you might have noticed, not all admins are as loathe to see editors blocked as I am :) --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Total casualties

Was wondering that if we sum up the casualties of these pogroms for a DYK? Faizan 15:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

10000 since 1950 from a source I read yesterday, however for the DYK I was going to go with "Since partition these pogroms have been endemic in India" Darkness Shines (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A mention of casualties needed in the DYK? Faizan 15:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Will try and recall the source, I read a lot of books and papers over the last few days. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Good work. I will nominate it if provided with the source. Looks like you are quite interested in pogroms-related articles, may provide you with a new task regarding Biharis. Faizan 15:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourced and is the last line in the last paragraph in the lede. All human rights abuses article interest me, set you task. I can fix the MB and 71 genocide articles later. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will fill the nomination for DYK tomorrow, I think the limit is within 5 days, I wanted to work on 1971 Bihari Genocide, or something like Anti-Bihari pogroms in Bangladesh, as they are being trialed too. And you can get the sources for M.B in my sandbox. Faizan 15:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Weird, I was reading on the atrocities against Biharis a few hours ago and figured it needed an article. Will begin it tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Will try to aid you, but I also expect DYK credit in account of Biharis/Pro-Pakistanis in BN. Faizan 15:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't you think that whatever I am working on, you figure it out at once? Maybe simultaneous. Faizan 15:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hope you continue your work on that article here. Faizan 04:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your encouragement. - Chandan Guha (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Pakistan

I replied,see that.Thank you.Ovsek (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Was it vandalism?I added Partition of India?Following this Pakistan was created. Was it vandalism?I dont do vandalism.I add only information.Ovsek (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought it was when I saw how much content had been removed, but no it was not vandalism, just a mistake on your part I assume. It does not matter when Pakistan was created, the entire history of the region is covered in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Ovsek has an old problem in this perspective, even after the discussion at Talk:Military History of Pakistan. Faizan 07:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)