| Revision as of 13:03, 11 June 2013 editStrike Eagle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,779 edits Reverted good faith edits by 77.77.165.233 (talk): It's his talk mister. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:05, 11 June 2013 edit undo77.77.165.233 (talk) Undid revision 559385935 by Strike Eagle (talk) deletition of someones contens is known as vendalism.Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| {{unblock|reason=I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit and then . I also on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the tag was added after I said I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also , albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)}} | {{unblock|reason=I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit and then . I also on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the tag was added after I said I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also , albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)}} | ||
| :Dear Darkness Shines,This edit is not for 3RR it is for Edit Warring which emphasize much more then 3RR so this block seems to be correct,sometimes your first edit is regarded as edit warr,depending upon condition of Article.Further this edit is not about wether you are right or wrong.] (]) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:05, 11 June 2013
| This is Darkness Shines's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
 Archives |
 |
|
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
June 2013
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Anti-Muslim pogroms in India, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:58, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Godhra train burning may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
| List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
|---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Unblock
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have had no more than two reverts on any article today, I added some tags and new content only. As can be seen, this was my only revert to Godhra train burning, all other edits were the addition of maintainence tags and new content. And on 2002 Gujarat violence just two reverts All other edits were again the addition of new content and maintainence tags Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring was pretty blatant - both parties are validly blocked -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Blocked for 2 weeks
You just got unblocked early and here we are with unreconstructed edit warring. I have blocked you for a period commensurate with your last block. Please play nice when you get back. Something tells me you are running out of chances. Spartaz 19:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- I did not violate 3RR, and am only at 2RR on any article, see my unblock request above. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please can reviewing admin look at this as DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatently baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable. Spartaz 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- User:Spartaz Since when has an editor had to discuss what he is going to add to an article? And BTW, I did discuss the changes I was going to make in advance at the Godra article here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let the reviewing admin make their own mind up. Its 23.42 in my locale and I'm away to my bed. Spartaz 19:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- No worries, have a good night. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let the reviewing admin make their own mind up. Its 23.42 in my locale and I'm away to my bed. Spartaz 19:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- User:Spartaz Since when has an editor had to discuss what he is going to add to an article? And BTW, I did discuss the changes I was going to make in advance at the Godra article here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- Please can reviewing admin look at this as DS was edit warring simultaneously at two articles at the same time with the same figures. Good thing I didn't see it when I dished out this block or I would have made it a month. EW does not require 3 reverts for a block. You were blatently baiting MrT and editing without discussion. That's not acceptable. Spartaz 19:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
WP India discussion invitation
Message added by Tito Dutta (talk • contributions • email) 19:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time.
- Tito, I am blocked man. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Ping
User:RegentsPark You got mail. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Unblock II
Darkness Shines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit summary and then mine. I also explained on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the update tag was added after I said we are meant to use the most recent and high quality sources available for our articles I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also mentioned, albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some new content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit and then . I also on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the tag was added after I said I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also , albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit and then . I also on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the tag was added after I said I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also , albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=I had but one revert to the article in question. One revert is not edit warring. The revert I feel was fully justified as I assumed Ratnakar.kulkarni had made an error as can be seen from the his edit and then . I also on the talk page before reverting him as to why I was going to. My other edits are also explained on the talk page, the tag was added after I said I added a globalize tag as the article is written purely from an Indian POV, which I also , albeit obliquely on talk, perhaps I ought to have been clearer. I then added some content to try for NPOV. And that is it. One revert is not edit warring, and most certainly not worthy of a two week block. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Dear Darkness Shines,This edit is not for 3RR it is for Edit Warring which emphasize much more then 3RR so this block seems to be correct,sometimes your first edit is regarded as edit warr,depending upon condition of Article.Further this edit is not about wether you are right or wrong.222.187.42.78 (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)