User talk:Darkness Shines/Archive 1

Simple references
These require two parts;


 * a)

Chzz is 98 years old.

He likes tea.


 * b) A section called "References" with the special code " ";

Named references
Chzz was born in 1837.

Chzz lives in Footown.

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates
You can put anything you like between, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals.

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

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! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban-ISI
Dear Darkness Shines, I am considering taking this to another dispute resolution form. Do you agree? And would you back up the argument with the sources you provided in the end? JCAla (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your input is very much appreciated. JCAla (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Art Pope
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Bolshevik Influence on Political Correctness. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Censorship
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Censorship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:.ss
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:.ss. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Soon and Baliunas controversy
Please realise that the Soon and Baliunas controversy article is in the climate change topic area, where edit warring is particularly sensitive and sanctions can lead to a block. Please present reasons and sources on the article talk page for any changes you wish to propose. Also note that the article is currently under improvement, and issue will be clarified as the article is modified. . dave souza, talk 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Yukon Green Party
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Yukon Green Party. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 09:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

ISI
Please do not make anyfurther changes, untill all editors come to a consensus agreement and discuss on the talk page. --Ambelland (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hockey stick controversy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

ISI
Your recent editing history at Inter-Services Intelligence‎ shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Balochistan conflict
I think you don't need to stomp the good/undisputed edits along with your revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I really do not care what you think, you are not a neutral editor as proved by your edit to that article. Do not darken my talk page again. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That constitutes vandalism unless you have a reason for it. You re added Pakistan as Islamic republic in 1947 while Pakistan became a republic years later. Unless you mean to dispute that and produce citations... it was a wrongful edit by you since there was no massive editing involved here for you to show your laziness. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No it does not, accuse me of being a vandal again and I will report you for administrative attention. I also asked you to not post on my talk page again, so please do not. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Accuse? I gave you the reason. And I told you it is vandalism to remove content without reason and didn't accuse you of it yet. Feel free to report me for that edit you made where you added incorrect content. You have to stop addressing me on your talk page if you want me to stay off. I'm not expecting a reply here, so bye. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011 in LGBT rights. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

''You have received this notice because your name is on Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page.'' RFC&#32;bot (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Taliban
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Taliban". Thank you. And thank you for your constructive input so far. JCAla (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:South Asia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:South Asia. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 11:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2011 (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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Pristina
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Pristina. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rick Santorum
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rick Santorum. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan-administered Kashmir
Your input about your experience with the edit-warring here and here would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fox News Channel
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fox News Channel. 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 Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough
I'm currently looking for a pattern of you entering all my disputes/reverts... If I do find one of hounding, I'll report you. If you send me improper warnings again I'll report you for that too. I don't care what you are fed up of, if you are not capable of debating find some other articles, because you just joined in here (purposely or not) to revert me. Have you seen the discussion on talk page of the article? I reverted a user who was removing sourced content from the article. If you really were responding in good faith, the right place was that discussion page and not a revert or my talk page. And do not editwar on my talk page, with no matter whom. -- lTopGunl (ping) 15:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not edit war on your page, do not issue false warnings. I also posted on the talk page of the article in question, another false claim by you. I warned you because you continually edit war unsupported content into articles, this is against policy, so stop doing it. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no edits on that article, so don't barge into my disputes where you have no business. I don't need to link the revert you made to the IP on my talk page. I added back the content because that was clear unexplained removal of some of the cited content as well. So stop hounding me. -- lTopGunl (ping) 16:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not hounding you, I looked at the IP`s edits as he called me a troll and a vandal. For the last time, look on the article talk page you dimwit. I explained why you were reverted there. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't care what others call you. Settle your dispute on their talk pages. FYI: You are on 3RR here, here and here along with a reinsertion on my talk page. I'll report on your very next revert on any article relevant or even similar to these topics. -- lTopGunl (ping) 17:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Stay off my talk page
Didn't I specifically state I don't want anyone flooding my talk page with their bullshit? Stay off my talk page for the next 48 hours, and if you come back, kindly do so without all the extra bickering and extra bullshit. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I asked a civil question, it is no fault of mine if others come barging in. I will not only stay off your bloody talk page I will simply ignore you henceforth you uncivil ass. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't ask a simple question. You asked a simple question, and then posted and posted  and posted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well excuse the hell out of me for responding to what others were saying, now take your foul language and bad attitude elsewhere, thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
As I understand it you should not use your rollback for the purpose – of reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with, I ask you therefore to undo your recent rollback revert of my edits.Slatersteven (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't use rollback mate Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd how you were able to revert back to your version and remove all those edits of mine.Slatersteven (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * that's twinkle Darkness Shines (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I found that out now. It is an anti-vandalism tool, and should not be used to revert good faith edits.Slatersteven (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not use the rollback feature on it, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * -, If you are referring to this edit, I see no problem. From WP:ROLLBACK, the issue with using rollback in these circumstances is: "Standard rollback is a fast way of undoing problematic edits, but it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected." DS quite correctly used Twinkle instead, and left an explanatory edit summary. Twinkle is not just an "anti-vandalism tool", it assists in many areas of editing. In this case it was simply a shortcut to editing the diff to which DS wished to revert, and re-saving, which can easily be done with no tools, and the use of Twinkle in this way seems perfectly appropriate to me. -- Begoon 02:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I appoligise.Slatersteven (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't feel too bad about it - I've seen lots of people be similarly confused about rollback/TW, and I'm sure the apology will be appreciated - thanks for doing that. -- Begoon 09:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Dewatchlist CWG's userspace
Not sure if you haven't already, but can you dewatchlist CWG's userspace entirely?— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Already have mate Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed your ping of the other user below. They asked you not to comment about this on their talk page but that doesn't mean it's okay to ping them to a page they can't respond.  Asking a user to "dewatch" but then pinging them is incredibly tone deaf. You create an awkward edit that would be difficult for either the page owner or the person pinged to remove or respond to.  I took the liberty to remove it for DS and you as I am not involved.  Don't ping the other editor here again.   can put his message on that editors talk page if necessary.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Where did everything go? Oh. Jeez.  Sigh.  OK...
Old planned message: Sorry, real life interfered yesterday. Per rationale above, reducing to 48 hrs. DS is cautioned, however, that he'd better be damn confident he's right if he files another iban violation report, because this one was way off base. A very large majority of people, even those who disagree with the block, are quite clear that the reported diff was in no way an iban violation. DS, please recalibrate what you think is obvious, because this one wasn't.

Ugh, ok, adding this based on edit summary when deleting everything: This doesn't alter my rationale much, especially if I look thru 2-3 AGF filters in sequence and assume you're pissed, so I'll still unblock. But DS, if you create a new account and continue to edit the areas you currently edit, and/or interact with editors you currently interact with, that won't be a clean start, that will be evasion of scrutiny, and will rapidly result I am quite sure in a community ban.

Give me a minute to think of a suitable not-too-hard, not-too-soft, just right rationale for the block log, and you'll be unblocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and ya, I was pissed off. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I suspect that there are enough people with clue watching both you and t'other that you need not even attempt to file IBAN stuff. Just leave it: if it is egregious then it will most likely be picked up and reported, while borderline or non-violations are exactly the sort of thing you need to avoid reporting. Just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You ain't wrong, cheers Darkness Shines (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)