User talk:Darkness Shines/Archive 4

Please comment on Talk:2011 alleged Iran assassination plot

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2011 alleged Iran assassination plot. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request for review and arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, JCAla (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, having read your question at the arbitration. The Arbitration Committee reviews and judges on conduct related issues only. If you so wish, you can comment on your perception about the issues raised in points 1) and 2) I requested arbitration on, as you are an involved editor with regards to 2). Regards, JCAla (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Palestine

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestine. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Extra" Tag Removal?

FYI, the tag you removed from Swiftboating was not an "extra POV tag" but an "article POV tag" as opposed to the second "section POV tag" (which is mine). While you are at liberty to remove a tag placed by another editor as you deem appropriate, it can be interpreted as a contentious edit and should be done with some care. Perhaps you may not be aware, but the editor who placed that tag is in active discussion within the article talk and the subject of his tag has already prompted considerable discussion...still in progress. Just making sure you are aware. Regards. JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. One tag is enough, as it covers the whole article. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, how to confuse a person in one easy lesson. I am going to remove the pov section one then. And that is the last I wish to hear about it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but it's not. My "POV Section" tag both references and is linked to a specific talk section designated to address a specific POV objection to specific content. I am restoring my tag pending resolution of that POV issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it

Removing a bad source would generally be fine... but stop hounding my contributions... get it? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked your account for 48 hours because it has become clear to me that you are acting as nothing other than a gadfly to TopGun.

To explain:

You are clearly following his edits and hounding, which I warned you about twice before.[1][2] It is obvious that you not only haven't improved your behavior, but it's gotten worse. The fact that you came to Right to exist, a page which has nothing to do with Pakistan and India, and edit warred there, tells me you were clearly following his contributions.
When discussing why a source shouldn't be used at Talk:Right to exist, you stated that their disclaimer admits that there may be editing or typographical errors, so it shouldn't be used. That is possibly the worst reason I've ever heard for not including a source - all major publications have occasional errors, and many admit to it. By those standards, almost no source could be used on Wikipedia. It is painfully obvious that you didn't like what the source had to say, so you went looking for a reason to not include it, no matter how spurious, and how cherry-picked it was.
You have been edit warring across many pages. You have been showing the same WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset as JCAla. Please stop that.
Further evidence at User talk:Magog the Ogre#Still?. This is of course not an isolated issue.

TopGun is not totally innocent in this matter. But from what I can see, it looks like you are more guilty, so I've blocked your account. PLEASE try to edit more constructively in the future, not just go around and revert his edits. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I promised another editor on my talk page, I'm willing to have my actions reviewed, so if another administrator views this and finds it was non-actionable, by all means undo the block, and you will have no complaint from me. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest this looks fairly reasonable, if you want some advice after the end of the block let me know.

You definitely shouldn't be even making the appearance of following TopGun around - it doesn't look good and it raises tensions if nothing else. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but this is not reasonable. The very reasons cited are not correct.

The page Right to exist does have to do with Pakistan and India.[3] Do other users now no longer have the right to edit pages TopGun has been active on putting nationalist statements such as: "Afghanistan is another nation that has irredentist claims over major Pakistani territories and is against Pakistan's right to exist." This is factually incorrect, Afghanistan challenges the Pashtun tribal areas and possibly Balochistan, not Pakistan's right to exist. See Durand Line for further elaboration. Now, are other editors not allowed to go to that page and challenge the content because TopGun has been active there? What kind of censoring logic is this? This should have no place on wikipedia.
Given reasons for using or not using a specific source on a talk page is no reason for a 48h block.
Why are you even mentioning me in this. I have not been edit warring across any pages. This is simply a false accusation. If Darkness Shines' reverts are the reason for the block then another editor has made an equal amount of reverts. Either take balanced actions or no actions.
If the very first and major reason you provided is not correct, how correct can the "reasons" be that were collected by TopGun (not you) on your talk page explicitly to get him blocked (read this,and this) to keep Darkness Shines from editing those articles?

With regards to the arbitration I ask you to honestly consider this. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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:

I was not hounding anyone, I got to the article in question from TG posting about an RFC on the talk page of Mar4d Blocks are not meant to be punitive and since Magog seems to have blocked me for following contributions when in fact I had gone to look at an RFC shows he was wrong in his assessment. Further to this, in reviewing the WP:BLOCK Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see Purpose and goals below) I should like Magog to explain how my being blocked for looking at an RFC is preventing damage to wiki.

Accept reason:

block has expired regardless Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the dispute and issues to decline the unblock, but this block looks correct—it will prevent future hounding. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed hounding.

Evidence to check

[4] You've seen this and recognized it has a hounding revert.. there was no way he got there by himself.
[5] Got here through my contributions list; the stub was only edited by a few users before. On a BRD revert (with a good explanation he couldn't object to - he then tagged the article for deletion - well known story ahead).
[6] I'm one of the starting users of this article, definitely accessed from my contributions and the dispute spilled over his BLP, now at DRN at length wasting time I could use to edit articles.
[7] Got in to make some edits here and there where I was having a dispute (and an old editwar) with a really rude IP editor who was reverting 3-4 users. then posted on the IP's talk to ask him if there was anything he needed to be edited so that he could do that on his behalf [8].
[9] Tagged a former FA for CSD just after I edited it and this turned out to be a bad tag (the article actually got deleted and then restored [10]). This one was ridiculous as the criteria he gave for CSD (12) was incorrect since even in case of violation all 3000 revisions of the article would not be copy vio.
[11] Very obvious: added a POV tag to the main country article on which I'm working with a few users to get it to FA and just had a peer review. The version was of right after the peer review. Then started inviting conflicts on the talk page - strongly rebutted by many users there.
[12] Came here to edit and started massive disputes (still on) after I reverted a confirmed sockmaster whose sock was blocked but was given a chance to discuss his dispute instead of a block. I really really tried to help him resolve here (all on talk page) but no use.
[13]
[14] An old editwar but I quit the dispute and left the sources on talk page since he didn't let me add a word to the two line section for which I had sourced info.
[15] Very obvious: and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on talk even when two editor told him he was wrong. Continued to add verification failed tags to verified sources.
[16] An RFC !vote (rather vote); something like "whatever JCAla says".
[17] I simply restored an unexplained removal by a vandal who first blanked and then CSD'd the article as "hoax"... nevertheless DS comes to revert and to talk page to discuss my habits.

Responses to above

This "evidence" of hounding is bullshit.

[18] First diff, I got there on RC patrol which I do quite regularly, note section blanking tag
Indians in Afghanistan
[19] I got here via random article, my first edits were to add multiple sources.[20] I had not seen TG had edited the article till I looked on the talk page to post about M. M. Alam.
[21] RC patrol and see an edit war on the go, I consulted an admin before I even edited this article. [22]
[23] So I made a mistake on copyvio? I doubt I was the first.
[24] Based on the fact that TG's talk page is on my watchlist it is hardly surprising that I would look at the article on Pakistan, given TG's inability to allow any information he feels critical of his nation into an article.
[25] How is this one hounding? I edited this article well before TG.[26]
[27] Another editor did in fact agree that the edit in question was fatally flawed.[28]
[29] A post on an RFC is now hounding is it? Much like the one which got me blocked no doubt.
Separatist movements of India Your damn right I followed him to this article, and a few of others above, and no it is not hounding, it is because of this.

[30][31][32]. Edit wars uncited content into an article.
[33] Reverets in unsourced content.
Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article.
When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles[34] he says "Blah"[35]
[36] Reverts out reliably sourced content. He did not like it.
[37] Files an AN3 report, even though 3R was never broken by myself.
[38] Misrepresentation of sources
[39]Battlefield mentality, talks of "sides"
Inter-Services Intelligence was locked for two weeks due to TG edit warring, his first action upon the article being unlocked, He reverts again. I endeavor to use only the best of sources, all are from academic publishing houses.
Taliban we have the same issue again, TG reverts out [40] huge amounts of content, all of which is sourced to academic publishers. He quite simply reverts out content which he thinks sheds a poor light on Pakistan.

This is why I check his contributions, he has edit warred unsourced content into articles on a regular basis, he has edit warred unreliable sources and unsourced information into BLP [41][42]

I really cannot be bothered to sort all of this into dates, but I began watching TG's edits after his edit warring uncited content into articles. He is a nationalist POV pusher, and a bad editor.

I would appreciate Magog looking at this and commenting. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before someone might mistake what you wrote. You might check his contributions but I don't think what you wanted to express above was that you "followed him to the article" Separatist Movements, I think what you wanted to express is that you became aware of the article AFTER TopGun had already edited before you. Following in the sense of editing afterwards not in the sense of hounding. And, you know by now that Magog does not look seriously into allegations against TopGun. Have been there before. JCAla (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was quite clear, yes I began to check his contributions after his edit warring unsourced content into articles. This is what I mean by I followed him, I was checking his contributions. Why is this an issue? An editor continually edit wars uncited content into articles, then he needs to be checked. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it could be misunderstood as hounding - the reason given by Magog for blocking you. Like in the sense of following him to articles. Read this, so that you can clarify what you mean. JCAla (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's talk about this a bit further: you believe he is introducing systematic bias into Wikipedia articles, so you are following him. That's actually a legitimate reason to follow someone; in particular, I remember you reverting some of his contributions a while back that has absolutely nothing to do with India/Pakistan (unlike this instance, where I was apparently wrong). That was part of the reasoning behind the block. If it was just this, I would unblock you on the spot.

However, I'm worried about you stating that something that is unquestionably a reliable source is unreliable. If you believe the article is introducing bias (i.e., WP:NPOV), that is entirely different from introducing poorly sourced material (i.e,. WP:RS). They are two separate policies completely. Upon further reflection, it seems to me that maybe you were thinking bias, but didn't express yourself very well and so instead went after the source. If this is the case, I am much more sympathetic to the actions (especially given that the content was clearly written in such an insulting way), and I will definitely unblock your account. Can you confirm that's the case?

In any case, in the future, you might want to make sure you don't come up with entirely spurious reasons for opposing material (e.g., that something is unreliable) and instead go after the real reason that something is inappropriate (e.g., that it's undue weight, or written in a non-neutral fashion). Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant yes, I meant the obvious bias but got sidetracked into source discussion. On the talk page I had begun talking about this, [43] with this edit. Yes I went about it the wrong way, and yes I will ensure I am more concise in future. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed comments by TG [44] for the obvious. First anyone can check my contributions and they will see I often do RC patrol. In fact my last bunch of edits before being blocked were RC patrol.[45] Second, as he is so insistent on my not posting on his talk then he really ought not post here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Mongolian People's Republic 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. Mewulwe (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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 did not break 3rr, I was reverting a highly disruptive editor who was continually removing reliably sourced content. Also according to 3rr I should have had the chance to self revert. WP:3RR If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion The chance would have been a nice thing, as had I been asked I would have self reverted.. Also as my previous block was in fact an error on the part of Magog 72 hours is excessive. Blocks are not meant to be punitive, this one most certainly is. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC) *Upon looking at the article were I supposedly broke 3rr Mongolian People's Republic I did not. The blocking admin no doubt believed this crap[46] There are but three reverts in there, the first was adding new content and a reference.[47]. Yes I got angry over the content being removed for no reason, but I was acting in good faith here. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked for edit-warring, not violating WP:3RR. In addition, your own edit summary in that edit war is belligerent and shows full knowledge of what you were doing: As before stop fucking edit warring all the time Frank | talk 15:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:

Look, I know I lost my temper. But please realize I did not deliberately set out to edit war, I just got angry at the content constantly being removed for no reason other than to piss me off, which obviously it did. If unblocked I will put myself on a permanent 1R restriction unless it is to revert obvious vandalism. I will ensure I do not let my temper get the better of me, next time I shall walk away. I do not see anything else I can offer so hope this is enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The offer to take a voluntary 1RR is appreciated, and I recommend you actually do so once this block expires. This is your third block, and your second related to edit-warring - as such, the escalation is not based on your "last" block, but your first: in other words, you were supposed to change your behaviour then, but you didn't. If a simple website is going to get you angry, then you likely need more than 3 short days of rest - I'm not at all convinced that the behaviours will not recur, as per WP:GAB (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My first "edit warring" block was for one revert, it was a bad block. As was my second block. The admins on this site do not do due diligence, they just block. What a waste of time. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right on the first two blocks. This one is unfortunate since you lost your temper reverting too often. But, there are a couple of editors who have been blocked more than twice. ;) Are you still in for improvement of the Taliban article? JCAla (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, as it will never be factually accurate. There are to many people who wish to rewrite history, I do not do big brother. What is the point in researching, sourcing and writing content when it is just removed by a person who feels it hurts his nationalist pride? I really cannot see myself wasting time with it. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, there are people who wish to rewrite history. But I think getting it right is worth it. Wikipedia is read by many people. Fully understand what you are saying though. JCAla (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that User:Suppositries was a sock, but ever more interesting is this, recent edit war on Right to exist Check this out, same IP range, same ISP I looks like that IP who keeps backing TG is Nangparbat. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Nangparbat's contributions? Was he only active on August 8, 2008? JCAla (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like those are it for that account, see [48] here, he seems to use his IP to edit war, But the IP had been blocked by Magog for disruption (remember he followed you around reverting your edits) before the account creation were he voted on the AFD[49] and he voted as an IP[50] on the same AFD. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stay focused

Hi there, calm down, get a nice and warm cup of tea, turn on some nice music and start thinking about an article which you'd really like to improve. Then you can start your work on your talk and have fun. Or go out, and do some sports, that is always good. Best regards, JCAla (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

Here copy & paste from Here. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

This IP Appears to be a sock of User:Heonsi/User:Chaosname based on WP:DUCK. Heonsi edit warred that specific edit in for quite a while. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Confucius Institute

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Confucius Institute. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Occupy Marines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Occupy Marines. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My username

is OK.--Enemyofmuslims (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 CT article RfC

Would you mind commenting on these two RfCs?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

A recent edit you made at Occupy Wall Street is in dispute at this time and is being disussed at the Dispute Resolution Notice boards. Could you please self revert the edit and add to the discussion here:[51]--Amadscientist (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

smile

You're on candid ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did forget to inform the user here. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Inter-Services Intelligence. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template fix

I just went to the template itself ({{Terrorism}}) and checked the edit history - usually the most recent edit(s) have broken it. Number 5 7 14:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really ought to have thought of that ) Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive edits

I have been noticing a pattern with your edits you seem to blank pages and try to justify with little summarys your pov pushing will be removed wherever I see it MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful

DS, be careful with the above user who has registered his account only yesterday. Remember what admins said to you: "Even if you think you are right ...". Don't let yourself get trapped into edit warring, you know some people are just waiting for that. JCAla (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A he is obviously a sock. B he is edit warring uncited content on living peopel into an article, which I will continue to remove. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell me that. I agree with you content-wise. What I am warning about is that some admin actions taken in similar issues were not always logical. JCAla (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but it is not like TG actually helped out, he bloody well egged him on saying I was making false claims on a BLP vio. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am again with my advise (which you probably don't even want) ... :-P I think you guys posting on Magog's page will only be used against you. Greetings, JCAla (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt of that, but I do need defend myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Good work keeping Anti-Pakistan sentiment clean from that user marcusmaximus or something. Anyhow I recommend you keep your 'tone' low. Just kidding! Shriram (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. It is seriously nice when someone takes time out to say you did a good job :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Little Star

sorry we edit conflicted and I removed the PROD because I'm finding enough sources that might determine notability. Give me a little bit? If I can't find anything, I'll AfD myself StarM 00:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Done; let me know if you need help with anything else. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hi there, just wanted to say thanks for your help in reverting the vandalism that was removing edits I made for no reason.[52] I'm pretty sure this has to do with some WP:MOS cleanup I did to some edits made by an IP awhile back. What I was doing was putting punctuation before ref tags, removing commas between month and year, fixing headers etc., edits the IP labeled "nitpicking". Clearly, the IP didn't understand manual of style and became upset when I tried to point it out, and now every once in awhile tries to frustrate me by randomly reverting edits I make. Also, just to clear up that mention about an e-mail address being added to an article; that email was in the article to begin with, I removed it as part of a cleanup edit but when the IP reverted all my edits to that article, the email ended up back in the article. My intention from the start was take it out of the article. Once again, thanks for the assist. Cmr08 (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Communist Romania

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Communist Romania. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

For your edits to the Transmetal page: Thank you. Thank you, thank you, thank you, oh and.....................THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your welcome. You also forgot to sign ~~~~ You need to type four of those. :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that I thought I pasted it but didnt. Sorry Odoital25 (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing if I may ask, could you take a look at the Transmetal 2 page. The whole page is using a wiki as a source. If you dont want to I understand. I have no idea about the term, and im having trouble getting to the source you listed on my PC.Odoital25 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:2008 Mumbai attacks. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Aviators_who_became_ace_in_a_day_discussion.
Message added 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RDCRN Contact Registry

Seems to me the edit to the article named above Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A10) was off base, so I've removed it. The criterion says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect." The new page does expand upon, detail or improve information, and the title is a plausible redirect. (I was in the middle of adding {merge} when the speedy was slapped on.) Discovering a duplicate article does not always mean a speedy del is in order. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shoeing

I have reverted your edit on Shoeing as this is currently under discussion on WP:BLPN. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War against the Taliban book

Indeed a very intelligent and interesting book! "Three families whose sons had died as suicide bombers in Afghanistan said they were afraid to talk about the deaths because of pressure from Pakistani intelligence agents, the ISI. Local people said dozens of families had lost sons in Afghanistan as suicide bombers and fighters ... One former Taliban commander said in an interview [with the New York Times] that he had been jailed by the ISI because he would not go to Afghanistan to fight. He said that, for Western and local consumption, his arrest had been billed as part of Pakistan's "crackdown" on the Taliban. Former Taliban members who had refused to fight in Afghanistan had been arrested - or even mysteriously killed - after resisting pressure to re-enlist in the Taliban, according to Pakistani and Afghan tribal elders." JCAla (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed an excellent resource, the ISI's assassination of a journalist shall have to go in the ISI article. The ISI releasing high profile Taliban captive's shall have to go in both the ISI and the Taliban article, wonderful stuff in here, really good find. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting source (The Afghanistan wars By William Maley): [53] JCAla (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His previous was better in my opinion. I always felt he rushed the last one out. See Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban Although he does cover a lot of new gorund in the 02 book. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to have a look at the first one then, didn't read it. Thanks for the tip. JCAla (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Wargame: European Escalation

Hello Darkness Shines. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Wargame: European Escalation, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A video game is not an eligible subject for A7. The reference provided shows importance past what is required for A7. It might warrant an AfD per WP:CRYSTAL, but this is no A7 material. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Newt Gingrich presidential campaign, 2012. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Afghanistan

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Indians in Afghanistan". Thank you. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pakistan

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pakistan. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Darkness Shines: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 February 2012/Indians in Afghanistan.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Whenaxis, at their talk page. MedcabBot (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This mediation was closed because you did not agree to participate, the mediator has now listed a structured RFC so that this issue can be over come: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Romanians of Serbia. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

This time, I've blocked you for your pattern of editing overall. Please note that the comments placed by TopGun on my user talk page did not factor into the decision. To explain:

You are still edit warring. I don't care if TopGun is doing it or not; WP:NOTTHEM.
You removed the text at Pak Watan to an existing article which is up for deletion. However, we have not gone through the entire process yet, and the article may be kept. As such, I find your zeal for neutrality to be wanting: it was a poor idea to remove it at all while the discussion was pending.
Your invocation of BLP at recent disputes seems tangential; IMO you were just looking for an excuse to validate your edit warring. The removal of content by you was not for the purposes of protecting an individual's reputation, rather to remove a quote you didn't like reportedly from said individual.
You are clearly not understanding that being correct on the facts does not give you license to revert at will. Whether I'm "mollycoddling" TopGun or not isn't the point: the point is you are absolutely not engaging in dispute resolution. I see constant accusations of bad faith from you, everywhere. If you are going to continue to read every one of TopGun's contributions and revert war to keep them out, then you are being disruptive. Period. There are other ways to go about things. You can complain with JCAla or anyone else all you want, but Wikipedia doesn't run on a vote: we run by the rules of the community. Remember, it does not matter if you are right or wrong - edit warring and constantly accusating another editor of bad faith will not stand here.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong again. You demand I do not post in my defense on your talk page, then when he goes bitching to you you block me. Again you fail miserably at actually looking at the facts. I was right when I said I gave up on you. I have not edit warred, I had but two reverts on the article in question. [54][55] And I removed it because there are no such thing as "Pakophilia". It is obvious it will be deleted. And I arrived there by following the what links here at Pakophilia, and I got there as it was linked in the lede of Anti-Pakistan sentiment. [56] I did not remove a quote because I did not like it. I removed it as I could find no other source for it. I even continued to look and found it after a while as can be seen here I have not been following and reverting TG at all. Please point to an instance since you requested I stop were I reverted him. I have been using the correct dispute resolution boards [57][58]. Again Magog, you have utterly failed to actually check the facts. As with your last blocks, this one is wrong. You most certainly do mollycoddle TG. Which is no doubt why he feels it is ok to go to 3r in putting [59] unsourced, biased and OR back into an article repeatedly. And do not say I was blanking it, I was adding content to it which actually had something to do with the article. [60][61] Darkness Shines (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also question my neutrality, yes I fully agree with this edit [62] as it was not sourced. I also would remove this A recent poll showed that Afghans politically rated Pakistan, considered the master behind the Taliban, as the least favoured country with only 2% popularity added by JCAla, as it misrepresents the source. Do you know how it does? considered the master behind the Taliban is not supported by the source. I am neutral enough thank you very much. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the whole poll needs to be removed, it is not an instance of Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Just because someone has a good opinion of another country does not mean they are anti another one. A great deal of what has been added by JCAla does not belong in the article at all. Unblock me and i'll prove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what about this [63] If I were not neutral I would not have reverted that IP would I? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And as you obviously believe I am following him and reverting him on every article please explain how my edits to the following have strangely vanished into the ether.[64][65][66][67]? The only article's were I encounter him are either already on my watchlist or are arrived at from following internal links. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing, if as you say I am not neutral thenwhy would I search for sources and vote keep [68] At this AFD? You also need to block this guy [69] for his "out of process edit" Darkness Shines (talk) 16:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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:

I have not edit warred, I had but two reverts on the article in question. [76][77] And I removed it because there are no such thing as "Pakophilia". It is obvious it will be deleted.[78] And I arrived there by following the what links here at Pakophilia, and I got there as it was linked in the lede of Anti-Pakistan sentiment. So I was not hounding anyone. This is a bad block. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Magog has stated that he does not object to my lifting his block; I am willing to unblock you, but you have to agree to be on an indefinite 1-rr restriction enforceable through blocks. You are allowed to revert an edit only once and then you have to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. If you accept this, I'll be glad to unblock. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. Please remember that from now on you're under an indefinite WP:1RR: you may only revert once every 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will result in a block without warning. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^[1] To cover trauma, psychological effects, actions carried out and first hand accounts. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistan sentiment

Ok, first, you do not need to oppose me in order to be seen as neutral. You know that the poll wasn't added by me. Second, if you do have a valid point, tell me. I was thinking, either the "racism" category has to go (then the article is about sentiments, including political) or a whole lot of content has to go which doesn't fit under the category racism. What's your take? JCAla (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not opposing you to be seen as anything. I know you did not add the poll, but you did add to it. The article can include both racism and political content IMO as both would be aspects of the article title. It could be a good article, and I was trying to improve it by adding content which belonged and remove the crap which quite simply did not. I am not going to bother with that article, it can remain the pure speculative crap it was when I found it. Anytime I start to fix an article TG says I am edit warring, he then bitches to Magog about it and I get fucking blocked. There is simply no point in trying to fix that article, or any other which TG edits or I will just keep getting blocked. I research and use the best of sources for the content I add, it is always removed under false pretexts, and then I get a block for restoring it. I check the edits of a person who adds hideously biased content to articles, who edit wars uncited content into articles. who removes academically source content from article, and I am called a "hounder" and blocked. And again I am blocked for following an internal link to remove a link to an article on something which does not exist, it is a fucking hoax and the article is obviously going to be deleted. This is called fucking "hounding" So to hell with those articles, I will tag them as bullshit and leave them to rot. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if you have a moment please revert this copyright violation [70] of [71] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio has been fixed, removing all this unsourced crap would be useful [72] I had already removed it once but surprise surprise it is back in there. I don't just remove junk from TG's articles you know. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the first issue, honestly, the connection between your and TopGun's block with regards to the article Pak Watan and your reaction to that block proposing to Magog with regards to a totally different article (Anti-Pakistan sentiment) ("A great deal of what has been added by JCAla does not belong in the article at all. Unblock me and i'll prove it.") is missing on me - except you doing this to prove your neutrality towards different editors in some way. At least you have totally proven wrong TopGun's earlier allegation that I edited the anti-Pakistan article (not related to the block of both of you) in some secretive agreement to "help you" as you obviously have a different opinion on what should be in that article. As for the second, ok, I certainly can understand your frustration with regards to some things. The dynamic TG->Magog's talk->Magog's action was the reason I went to ArbCom after all. I had explicitly asked Magog to refer this issue to the respective boards where there is wider attention and judgement, so he won't get bothered as often and different people can make sense of these political disputes. You need to know yourself what consequences you want to take. But having observed your reaction for a while now, you tend to get frustrated easily but then when you calm down, you return to the articles nevertheless. JCAla (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about MedCab

Just to let you know, if you don't agree to the ground rules that means you will not be able to participate in this mediation, and the mediation will continue in due course. Whenaxis talk · contribs 22:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The NPOV Barnstar of Merit
		strong work neutering TopGuns POV warring on wp. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
		_{This WikiAward was given to Darkness Shines by Wikireader41 (talk) on 21:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you, shame it has cost me a clean block log though lol. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop engaging User:Top Gun

[73] How about trying this: State your case once, then move on. It seems, from the exchanges, that you're not going to convince each other of anything, so stating your case once should be sufficient, and it might allow other editors to focus on editing. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with him. Let another clear up the mess he creates. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably for the best. Thank you. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DONT send me threats again

DONT send me threats again --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not threats, if you continue to add uncited content to Wikipedia as you have been you will be blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at He to Hecuba's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--He to Hecuba (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Swiftboating

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiftboating. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mayamohini

Please read Wikipedia:Notability (films) before simply adding an AfD tag. The article was created just 15 minutes back with an under-construction tag. I just don't understand why you jump in to putting an AfD tag without doing some basic research or googling !!!!
Anish Viswa 02:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did Google it. 5 hits on Gnews. Film not even released yet. Close the AFD if you disagree with me, I am not fussed. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film need not be released to have an article. As per Wiki guidelines the principal-photo shoot must happen and references should be available. Thanks.
Anish Viswa 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you already voted keep I closed it as nominator, I think I am allowed. Darkness Shines (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ruttles/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beer

I like beer too, but I'm not so sure about it flavoured with balsam fir (sounds more suitable for the bath...). I do like heather ale, though. Peridon (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVN post

Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard's talk page. Bit belated but hopefully still relevant. Nightw 18:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Darkness Shines. I noticed you recently withdrew and subsequently closed this AfD discussion. When closing discussions, please remember to substitute the template at the very top of the page, so that the title of the nominated article is also contained within the archive box. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Music of Canada

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Music of Canada. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Puerto Rico Republican primary, 2012. 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 Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Darkness Shines. You have new messages at Talk:Jamie Kelso.
Message added 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop baiting User:TopGun

You know he's blocked and cannot respond. Please stop contributing to the misery of editing anywhere in the vicinity of either of you.[74] WP:STICK Thank you. Pseudofusulina (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I do not know if he is still blocked as his page is not on my watchlist. I have asked on AN3 and the blocking admins talk page for his unblock. I am not baiting him and I do not appreciate you making this accusation twice. I simply responded to a statement he had made which I had missed. Try and at least to show some good faith. If you have nothing of worth to say then do not bother posting your nonsense here again. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Brownmiller, Susan (2007). William F. Schulz (ed.). The phenomenon of torture: readings and commentary (annotated ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 88–95. ISBN 978-0812219821.

[Brownmiller-1] Brownmiller, Susan (2007). William F. Schulz (ed.). The phenomenon of torture: readings and commentary (annotated ed.). University of Pennsylvania Press. pp. 88–95. ISBN 978-0812219821.

[1]