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)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For creating beautiful articles, just after your return. A cordial welcome! Faizan 04:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Come on now aid me here. Your article is patrolled now. Faizan 05:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I just looked through it, so far I see a copyright violation (description of Blod and tears), a link vio [4] printed in 71 so not PD. Also not RS. You have a few primary sources in there and the numbers do not add up, the MAR database says "Bengalis reportedly killed over 1,000 Biharis." You have Rummel down as saying 500,000, but he writes "a counter-genocide of 150,000 non-Bengalis" quite the discrepancy. And of course the majority of those killings are not pogroms nor genocide as they were not state backed. Rummel says as much himself "How much of this was democide (intentional killing by government or its agents) is a question." Will look further as soon as I can. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will look into Rummel, and the Blood and Tears. Thanks for pointing out. Was not my star eligible to be put to your userpage? Faizan 07:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but the constant spinning gives me motion sickness. It is the same when I play FPS games, it is a strange one, I do not get motion sick from planes, boats nor cars, but stuff spinning on my screen makes me feel dizzy and nauseous. I am going to move it to a subpage though. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Lol. No problem, a navigation bar may be viable for your userpage. Well the most of the references you used at Anti-Muslim pogroms in India are not online, I think mainly from Books? How do you get such refs? Any guide for Biharis? Faizan 08:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A what bar? I would imagine most of the references used at AMpiN can be viewed via GBooks, that is normally where I start and then head to the library if I do not have digital copies available. As for the Bihari article, I think Mar4ds idea for an article title is not a bad one. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I have already renamed it. Faizan 15:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DS, aid me there in the article, or with the DYK. Come on man. Faizan 11:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Darkness Shines 100 notout (23 months) 5 X fours, 1 X sixes Strike Σagle 05:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Re: Change

Namaste, Darkness Shines. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 05:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Thank you for the heads up. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

CfD

Hi DS, I have nominated the Category:Anti-Muslim pogroms in India for deletion, can you please discuss (I see that you have already voted, sorry for the delay). -sarvajna (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries on the delay mate, I saw you had added the CFD template, why did you not use twinkle? It does it all for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not use twinkle and most of the time I edit from from work place, those things do not work on these office browsers. -sarvajna (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Murder of Travis Alexander

Hi. Are you sticking with this article? We need you there to help maintain appropriate balance, especially when I or other editors are not there watching over the article. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

How many more chances will user Geebee get? Now he removed an entire section labeling it Irrelevant. User has been warned and told to stop several times. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Very quick observation Mrt canvassing

Doesnt this [5] fall into the category of canvassing other users? he has sent this exact message to at least two or more other editors trying to garner sympathy for his cause which is basically deleting the article! yours sincerely nang. 81.157.114.216 (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Anti-Muslim pogroms in India for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anti-Muslim pogroms in India 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/Anti-Muslim pogroms in India 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 notice from the top of the article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning

That new article of yours, Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, displays forms of blockworthy tendentious editing and source misrepresentation. If I see you editing like that again, I will ask for a topic ban for you via WP:AE. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No sources were misrepresented, and it is not tendentious editing to create an article on a noteworthy subject. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at OrangesRyellow's talk page.
Message added 11:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad days Ds? Eh? The same here, but no worries. The spring will be on the spot soon. Faizan 11:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Godhra train burning may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (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:

I have had no more than two reverts on any article today, I added some tags and new content only. As can be seen, this was my only revert to Godhra train burning, all other edits were the addition of maintainence tags and new content. And on 2002 Gujarat violence just two reverts [6][7] All other edits were again the addition of new content and maintainence tags Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring was pretty blatant - both parties are validly blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 9 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.

Blocked for 2 weeks

You just got unblocked early and here we are with unreconstructed edit warring. I have blocked you for a period commensurate with your last block. Please play nice when you get back. Something tells me you are running out of chances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR, and am only at 2RR on any article, see my unblock request above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Please can reviewing admin look at this as DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatently baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Spartaz Since when has an editor had to discuss what he is going to add to an article? And BTW, I did discuss the changes I was going to make in advance at the Godra article here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Let the reviewing admin make their own mind up. Its 23.42 in my locale and I'm away to my bed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries, have a good night. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP India discussion invitation

Namaste, Darkness Shines. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito Dutta  (talk • contributions • email) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.

Tito, I am blocked man. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ping

User:RegentsPark You got mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 9 June 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:

I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit summary and then mine. I also explained on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the update tag was added after I said we are meant to use the most recent and high quality sources available for our articles I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also mentioned, albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some new content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There doesn't need to be a certain number of reverts in a timeframe to be considered edit warring; when the reverts are disruptive, that would be sufficient grounds for a block. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:51, 16 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.

Just so you know

I am on you Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Nang?

Hi Darkness Shines. Sorry to find my favorite ed blocked. Anyway, do you thing this [8] could be Nang?OrangesRyellow (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He has used the Three mobile network before so it is possible Darkness Shines (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock III

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:

How is one revert and adding maintenance tags to an article, all of which was discussed disruptive editing? I just looked over WP:DISRUPT and see nothing there to justify this block, let alone two weeks. Darkness Shines (talk) 4:20 am, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Editor has accepted a one maintenance tag restriction per 24 hours restriction. regentspark (comment) 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

DS, just as an FYI, you did sort of transgress 3RR with the maintenance tags. Though the tags were different, they were similar in intent. You need to acknowledge that and recognize that edit warring is not merely something technical and commit to trying to avoid that sort of thing in future. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My commitment to avoid edit warring should be obvious given how long it has been since I was involved in an edit war. I freely admit that adding the tags can be seen as gaming the system, but I had discussed them on the talk page. If you hope to extract a promise from me that I will not add tags to an article again, well obviously I cannot make such a promise given the POV pushing and tag teaming done in the topic area. I had one revert, I discussed everything I did, this block is bollocks and I will not be browbeaten because two editors violated policy in removing said tags and reliably sourced content for no reason other than they do not like the truth. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you. Horses and water and all that. I don't see the block as 'bollocks', the length of the block is a different question though. (PS. You should read my statement above with a little more care.) --regentspark (comment) 16:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, it is most amusing that the two editors who did in fact break 3RR got short blocks which were lifted early, yet the editor who followed policy gets two weeks which is obviously going to run the full course. So yes, it is bollocks. You know as well as I do that the topic area is full of POV pushers, there are no promises I can make which will be of any use, I have to be able to tag articles for factual and NPOV issues, I have to be able to revert when reliably sourced content is removed due to POV pushers not liking it. So how you expect me to try and avoid adding tags or content to articles in future is simply not feasible. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I can offer to add no more than one maintenance tag per 24hr period to an article, but that is about the best I can offer. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bihari atrocities

Hi,

What's your take on this proposed deletion? It would be great if peers and neutral editors could take charge of that article. And also, shouldn't the atrocities against Biharis also be considered as part of the 1971 Bangladesh genocide and hence be covered in the 1971 article?--ArmanJ (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arman. Unfortunately DS is currently blocked (till the 23rd I think) and it wouldn't be wise for him to comment on anything other than the block. Best to wait for a response after he returns. --regentspark (comment) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ArmanJ Sorry but while I am blocked I cannot really comment on an AFD. I will comment on your being reported for edit warring though, the IP you were reverting is an IP sock of user:Nangparbat and as such your reverts are exempted from 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

RameshJain9 certainly seems to be a sock of user:Nangparbat. He's disruptive, offensive tone is similar to the recently blocked IP sock. And also suspiciously, there are several single purpose accounts springing up in the AfD.--ArmanJ (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the user is already suspected as a sock of Nangparbat, I've commented about him there. His behavioral styles are also quite similar to that of the IP, meaningless edit warring and making personal attacks. Waiting for DSs' response.--Zayeem ^(talk)

Sign

Hi DS, can you please put your signature on the talk page of 2002 Gujarat Violence after the RFC statement? -sarvajna (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Tagging socks

I know I have asked you this before, and I'm in the middle of writing an essay for SPI that covers this, but please do NOT tag socks. You make my job harder when you do this. Why doesn't matter, I swear to you, it does make my job harder, and if you are wrong, it is a civility violation. Please don't tag unblocked (or even blocked) editors. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 23:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

To do

[9] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Potential RFC/U

Hey man, I'm drafting a potential RFC/U on Baboon43 in my sandbox, User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox. I'm hoping that a large scale community effort will help him understand that he should deal with people in a different way. Because this issue is long running and not restricted to a specific article, I felt that your warning to him here and your explanation of site policies to him here were attempts to mediate in these disputes. Would you be willing to certify as a user who tried and failed to resolve the dispute? If you don't agree or aren't comfortable, I'll remove any reference to you in the draft. MezzoMezzo (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I only really know of his actions at the one article, but if you think my two comments are enough to help out then, yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC/U has been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. I'm just letting you know since you are a certifier and may want to observe how it unfolds. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Read the talk page

Read the talk page and revert any further changes they may make so I do not have to. I have found an amicable solution, but the warring party will revert it soon. You are now involved and threatening me. Due diligence suggests you should read the talk page and find that the current version is a compromise and is an accurate use of my sources, which have been attributed to broken references by the party in question Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

*Sigh*

Everywhere I turn these days I'm seeing one or the other of you and MrT reporting/complaining about the other. I'm quite fed up with this and this has to come to an end now as its disrupting and distracting for other editors. There are 3 ways this can go:

• I can start full protecting every article you squable over until you see sense
• I can impose an adminstrative sanction to prevent you editing the same article or allowing an admin to expel you from any argument you are fighting over or
• I can get my block stick out and start escalating blocks until you both get indeffed. And to be fair to you since you are ahead of MrT on the escalating block I'll start you both off on a month.

The alternative is for you to negotiate a way of working with each other that doesn't involve squabbling in a way that my 9 year old is too mature to engage in. This is pretty much your last chance to sort this out yourself. Please take it and don't wait for me or the community to resolve this for you as I assure you that you won't like how that ends up. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate you rewriting this, as my first thought was "Did your nine year old write this for you?" Now of course I realize she corrected it for you Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Since it's almost midnight for me that was a really classy comment. Bravo. Just noting that I am aware that you have signified awareness of discretionary sanctions under India/Pakistan/Afghanistan RFAR and that I have warned MrT similarly. I'm inclined for option 2 if this sniping at each other continues. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Go to bed mate. And sorry to have been a pain in your arse, also sorry for the lack of wit and class, have had a few beers. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

About racism in the depiction of Indigenous peopless

here are a couple of interesting articles you might like to read about how and why old photos of Native Americans often have racist implications, either building on or promoting positive or negative stereotypes. [10][11]. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nothing compares to a little light reading, I thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why reputable sources cannot be trusted

Since I have burden to explain my comments and that is not related to the subject of the discussion:

• He was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Prize in 1967 and Swami Vivekananda Prize in 1989."Academician Y.P. Chelyshev 90th birth anniversary celebrations". Russian Embassy, India.

The above reputable source says Eugene Chelyshev won the Jawaharlal Nehru Award but the official website says Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan won it in 1967.

Hope this explains the context of my doubting. The Legend of Zorro 08:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Russian embassy in India is not what I would call on a par with an academic source. And I see no reason to doubt Steven I. Wilkinson Votes and Violence: Electoral Competition and Ethnic Riots in India Cambridge University Press Darkness Shines (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Responding in discussion page. The Legend of Zorro 08:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Other Instances

Responding here as the thing is not directly related with the discussion

• Syed Abdullah Bukhari was jailed for 18 days after a riot (primarily by Muslim community led by him) broke out against the forced sterilization by the Indira Gandhi government.
• DSP Zia-ul-Haque murder which also led to riots led by Syed Ahmed Bukhari. The Legend of Zorro 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I am being dense here but what has this to do with either sources or the draft article? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It has *nothing to do with sources of the article. The above two instances I mention are riots or violence (the way you phrase it) where two top Religious leaders are directly associated. So if I am not terribly wrong it has *something to do with the draft article. Am I wrong? The Legend of Zorro 13:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you sources for this? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper sources but *zero academic sources. But do not doubt my validity of the above claims since each one of them sources are from The Times of India, Hindustan Times or comparable source. The Legend of Zorro 13:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Which riots did they start? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There are hundred of violence going around everyday everywhere in the world but only where at least a hundred or so people get killed are termed riots. The two instances I mention are comparable to 2007 Kolkata riots but do not have separate wiki article. That said these two events are notable in their own right. The Legend of Zorro 13:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

A link to a newspaper article on the riots they started would be real handy. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see this. You used this site as reference. And for the second claim please see this. The Legend of Zorro 13:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say they caused riots, just that he has been charged with rioting. It also has nothing to do with the draft article does it? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The subject of your draft is Anti-Muslim violence in India ‎and my topic is DSP Zia-ul-Haque murder. It was a significant event of murder of a DSP and that dragged Syed Ahmed Bukhari to a political controversy with Samajwadi Party. I am quite unsure how are you claiming that It also has nothing to do with the draft article. The Legend of Zorro 14:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Was Zia-ul-Haque a Muslim? What does Zia-ul-Haque have to do with Bukhari? Sorry, but you need to be clearer. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Why will I waste my time along with you if Zia-ul-Haque was a Hindu knowing very well that the subject of the topic is Anti-Muslim violence in India? The Legend of Zorro 14:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(out)Hmm, Right listen, you need sources, which was what I was getting at in my previous response. If you just make cryptic statements then how do you think I will get your point? And you never responded to my question, What does Zia-ul-Haque have to do with Bukhari? as that information would be kinda usefull. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bukhari family is the most powerful Muslim family of India. They were for 13 generations the Shahi Imams of the Jama Masjid, Delhi for 350 years. Our concern Mr. Syed Ahmed Bukhari is the Imam for now 13 years since 2000. He has *nothing to do with DSP Zia-ul-Haque. But after the *murder of DSP Zia-ul-Haque he *used DSP Zia-ul-Haque to furthur his own *political agendas. Is this long explaination enough? The Legend of Zorro 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Erm, not really. So what if a politician used the murder of a person to further their agenda? Politicians do that all the time. Do me a favour and just write up what you think should be added to the draft, then we can hash it out. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you move your proposal to the talk page of the draft so others might comment on it please? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Anti-Muslim violence in India The Legend of Zorro 15:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Shahbag protests.
Message added 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Legend of Zorro 23:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

No I don't, or at least none that I can see? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was a request for comment. By the way I want to add some info in the article. But cannot figure out if it belongs to it. Help appreciated. The Legend of Zorro 23:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Post your suggestions to the article talk page and it can be discussed, same as usual editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

2002 Guj vio

I reverted you here and forgot to write the edit summary. Hence this note. By this time everyone should know that any addition or deletion in any of these articles should be discussed on talk pages. So do that! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I did not forget anything Remove OR sourced to an Op-Ed Darkness Shines (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Praveen Swami

I have added a COI tag in the article due to Special:Contributions/Praveenswami. Thanks. The Legend of Zorro 15:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you telling me this? And that user has not touched that article in nearly three years. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit-warrior

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - SudoGhost 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I only brought it up because I saw that you had not been notified. If you had been notified and I missed it, then my apologies. - SudoGhost 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sudo but I had already seen it. I trust common sense to break out any moment now. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Swami Aseemanand for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Swami Aseemanand 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/Swami Aseemanand 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 notice from the top of the article. -sarvajna (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Link: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Darkness_Shines_is_back. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm A.amitkumar. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Anti-Muslim violence in India, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.  A m i t  ❤  18:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Ok, I was proven wrong while stile writing. I think your article on Anti-Muslim violence in India is actually really good and important work. You obviously can edit really well when you choose. I haven't reviewed the article for any traces of bias or sensationalism yet, but it seems very well researched. Hat's off! User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, yours is an opinion I respect. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (Anti-Muslim violence in India) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Anti-Muslim violence in India, Darkness Shines!

Wikipedia editor A.amitkumar just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi, The un-review was a mistake - changed to reviewed again.It happened while I was trying to read the article (pointed by some one in the ANI discussion).

To reply, leave a comment on A.amitkumar's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Thanks for the explanation, I was most confused about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I did not mean to un-review or review this page, but just trying to read the edits mentioned by another user that are mentioned in the ANI comments. Other issues aside some text does look a teeny weeny bit one sided but I surely dont gather the part of why a small word becomes such a PIA for people. By the way - Did you curate your own page and mark it reviewed?? A m i t  ❤  19:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I am auto reviewed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Khunjerab pass

Thank you for the heads up on the above. I am sooo new i have no idea how to write to you or edit the article. I was just intending to add a little 'colour' to the article. I am the citing authority as I was there. I wasnt sure why the para was removed.I thought I made a mistake in saving it so tried again - not to create a 'war'. Wolfwishes (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Wolfwishes You need to cite a source when you add content to an article, see WP:V to get an idea on it, this place can be confusing at first, just take your time and perhaps use your sandbox for test editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here

Hey Darkness Shines

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Asheq Siddiquee". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 19:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Tags removal

I've reverted your removal of the tags as the dispute is still unresolved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Kidding Zayeem? The RfC is clear and void about the tags. Faizan 08:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I've replied in your talk page as well. First, Wamiq, Marad and Rose all three are in the same side of the dispute in which you are, so I'm not taking their !votes. Second, the other two participants also overlooked the dispute which was started below. Moreover, the dispute over the rape issue is quite related to POV so the tags must be there until the dispute is resolved.--Zayeem ^(talk) 08:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Free images

Namaste, Darkness Shines. You have got at least one new message at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Please continue the discussion there!
Message added by Tito☸Dutta 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.