User talk:Idel800

Manipulation
Just popped in to clear up a few misconceptions.
 * 1. Darkness Shines was incorrect about the Huffington Post copyvio. This does not mean he was acting in bad faith or being abusive; it merely means he was wrong. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Well, if you think Darkness Shines just made a mistake by making this revert (and claiming that he is reverting it for copyright violation) and didn't do anything abusive intentionally, then how will you explain his second revert -  that he made without explaining any reason. After he reverted my valid edits, where no copyright violation is involved, I reverted his action back afterwards and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. Do you think the last revert the user Darkness Shines made was also his unintentional mistake and not abusive activity. Because in my edit note, I mentioned it clearly that the copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines is false. Despite this, Darkness Shines once again reverted my edit without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder he has made illegitimate revert that needs to be undone now. And furthermore, he needs to warned to stop making such abusive reverts.''' Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. The reason you don't find the Huffington Post article being used as a citation at Comfort women is because they copied from us rather than the other way around. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Nope, the 'Huffington post' reference doesn't exist anywhere in the entire Comfort women article either. I have cross checked. As you said it was there in 2011, maybe it has been already removed. However, that is not the question at all. In the contents I posted from Comfort women, there was no reference to any 'Huffington post' article and the contents in that 'Huffington post' article are not similar to the contents I posted in 'Genocidal rape' either. That 'Huffington post' article was completely irrelevant, and as it doesn't exist in the entire Comfort women article either, I wonder where did Darkness Shines discover that article.''' Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 3. Darkness Shines repeatedly removed content that he suspected contained a copyright violation. Other reverts were done with edit summaries indicating he believed the content should be removed for reasons other than copyvio. After removing, he immediately opened a discussion on the talk page. Per the WP:BRD cycle, once your addition has been challenged, you need to go to the talk page to discuss, not repeatedly reinsert the material over the objections of the other person. Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'''This is another misleading comment. The only legitimate revert made by Darkness Shines was these, (for partial copyright violation of http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm), and after he reverted these edits, I never posted those contents in the article back. So, nothing wrong from my side in this regard. All other reverts made by Darkness Shines are illegitimate as those of my edits didn't include any copyright violation, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit notes to make it appear as he is reverting my edit for a copyright violation when he is actually reverting valid edits. I responded to all his posts in the talk page and in edit warring noticeboard. However, he was not willing to answer my questions, and he does not mention any reason he was reverting my edits. For example, in this revert, he mentions in the edit note that he is making this revert for a copyright violation, which is misleading. So, I reverted his action back afterwards and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone.''' Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * 4. My only activity at Genocidal rape was to respond to Darkness Shines' copyvio question on the talk page. I have never edited the article and am not WP:involved, as Wikipedia defines it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

'''In the public log of Genocidal rape the http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm copyright violation is listed, and that copyright violation is identified by you there. This is why I said that you were involved in page editing of Genocidal rape (or patrolling). Anyway, now come to the point. There is no reason behind blocking my account. The entire thing is manipulated and number of false allegations were made towards me. If the only mistake I made was making edit that constitute a partial copyright violation, that doesn't warrant a block on my account at this point as I never posted those disputed contents back in this article again. The user Darkness Shines clearly made an abusive edit by reverting my edit without any reason, even after I mentioned in the edit note that his copyright violation claim was false. And for obvious reasons, the last revert made by Darkness Shines should be undone, and he should at least be warned and my account should be unblocked.''' Idel800 (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * To accuse every admin or editor being "manipulated" will not help your case at all. Should you continue, you are more likely to find your access to your talk page revoked.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I mentioned it already in the answer to Diannaa's comments, to repeat it again, the only legitimate revert made by Darkness Shines was these, (for partial copyright violation of http://www.cnd.org/njmassacre/njm-tran/njm-ch10.htm), and after he reverted these edits, I never posted those contents in the article back. So, nothing wrong from my side in this regard. All other reverts made by Darkness Shines are illegitimate as those of my edits didn't include any copyright violation, but Darkness Shines writes misleading and deceptive edit notes to make it appear as he is reverting my edit for a copyright violation when he is actually reverting valid edits. I responded to all his posts in the talk page and in edit warring noticeboard. However, he was not willing to answer my questions, and he does not mention any reason he was reverting my edits. For example, in this revert , he mentions in the edit note that he is making this revert for a copyright violation, which is misleading. So, I reverted his action back afterwards  and made a edit note mentioning the false copyright violation claim made by Darkness Shines. But the user Darkness Shines reverted my edit once again  without mentioning any reason for making the revert in the edit note. No wonder the last reverts he made are disruptive and needs to be undone. There is no reason behind blocking my account. The entire thing is manipulated and number of false allegations were made towards me. If the only mistake I made was making edit that constitute a partial copyright violation, that doesn't warrant a block on my account at this point as I never posted those disputed contents back in this article again. The user Darkness Shines clearly made an abusive edit by reverting my edit without any reason, even after I mentioned in the edit note that his copyright violation claim was false. And for obvious reasons, the last revert made by Darkness Shines should be undone, and he should at least be warned and my account should be unblocked. Idel800 (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you stop pinging me, I've had about twenty notifications now and it's getting annoying Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) I have no idea why you think I was "influenced by further manipulative comments by Diannaa". I was influenced by just two facts: (1) you were blocked for edit warring and (2) your unblock request did not address the issue of edit warring. That is all.
 * 2) Once again you have posted absurdly long walls of text which have nothing to do with the reason for your block, and which are full of endless accusations against other editors. You are never going to be unblocked on the basis of such posts, as you will already know if you took the advice you have repeatedly been given to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting unblock requests. Since such pointless off-topic unblock requests achieve nothing except for wasting time of administrators, I am going to remove your talk page access for the duration of the block. The persistent pinging of editors, mentioned above, is further reason for removing talk page access. If the administrator who reviews your current request disagrees with that decision, he or she is perfectly free to restore your talk page access. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reply to your email
I have read your email. I understand what you are saying, and you do have a valid point. However, what you are asking me to do is to edit on your behalf while you are blocked, effectively helping you to get round the block. If you had drawn my attention to something such as a copyright infringement or possible libel, I would have dealt with it, but this is an ordinary case of two editors disagreeing over article content, and you should deal with it through the normal ways of dealing with content disputes once the block is over, which will be in one day and a few hours from now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I also received an email. Just to let you know that I did review all the diffs, both yours and Darkness Shines, before I posted at WP:ANI and before I decided what to do. I already answered your question; in fact I have already answered it twice. The two diffs you presented are when Darkness Shines is removing what he believes to be a copyright violation from the Huffington Post. To answer your query above, he likely found the overlap with the Huffington Post article by using one of our copyvio detection tools. Not all the content he removed appears in the HuffPost article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have now read your second email. You are simply using email to continue to post the same kind of thing which led to your talk page access being removed. I also suspect from what Diannaa has said above that your email to her may have been doing that. You also seem to have completely misunderstood my message above: the issue which you are dealing with is one which should be dealt with through the normal channels, and there is no reason there at all for anyone, administrator or otherwise, to do on your behalf things which you could do yourself if you were not blocked. Nor is there any reason to allow you to use email to avoid the effect of your talk page access being removed, by simply posting the same kinds of things by email. I shall therefore remove your email access for what time is left of the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have also received a second email. Darkness Shines makes the case on the talk page that mass rape is not the same thing as genocidal rape, and therefore he objects to you copying the content from comfort women to genocidal rape. This is a valid editorial reason to object to your edit. No administrator is going to endorse your edit or perform it for you, thereby taking your side in an edit war and making a content decision. When he reverted your edit because he mistakenly thought it contained a copyright violation, he did not violate our policies or justifies administrative action. Making a mistake is not the same thing as being intentionally deceptive. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Image without license
===Unspecified source/license for File:Bodies of Bangali students of Dhaka University's Iqbal Hall (now Shaheed Sergeant Zahurul Haq Hall) killed during the Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971 were kept lying in front of the dormitory the next day.jpeg===

Thanks for uploading File:Bodies of Bangali students of Dhaka University's Iqbal Hall (now Shaheed Sergeant Zahurul Haq Hall) killed during the Operation Searchlight on March 25, 1971 were kept lying in front of the dormitory the next day.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 22:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rape during war
Please note that this might be the better page, Wartime sexual violence, to make your additions. Rape during wartime, is not always genocidal in nature and the information you provide seems to be better suited to article and it's talk page. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Only images in public domain are allowed
As Wikipedia can not control who or how the images posted to their pages are used, it is imperative that only images in the public domain or those uploaded with owner permission are allow on here. Anything else can puts Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)