On January 15, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Ramsay (surgeon), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I put more reliable sources for the nicknames, which means they are not to be deleted because it is in common usage, so we must chronicle it for historical sake.BLUEDOGTN20:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:DarkFalls has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as DarkFalls's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear DarkFalls!
Hi - I'm the original article creator. Rather than removing all this stuff, why don't you give me the chance to find proper, reliable sources to back some of it up, or discuss with me why they're unreliable? Seems a bit unusual to remove huge chunks without giving the original author a chance to add a citation or improve the article! Can you not replace some of your recent deletions and add a "citation needed" tag? --Tris2000 (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DarkFalls/Archive January - March 2010 - Thanks for your participation and support in my recent successful RfA. Your confidence and trust in me is much appreciated. As a new admin I will try hard to keep from wading in too deep over the tops of my waders, nor shall I let the Buffalo intimidate me.--Mike Cline (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you know, I ve been block for almost a month now and have been trying to get unblocked. But Tipotety blocked me from using my commons talk page for absolutely no reason and he as been putting attacks on the OTRS Noticeboard as well as deleting relevant comments and questions not once not twice but three times. That to me sounds like vandalism,and i was wondering if you thinking the same way. He also put a frictuse block on my ip range. Considering the fact that that using my ip is my only means of communication on commons at this time makes it difficult because he must have disabled my email privileges as well, i could be wrong about that and I'll admit it if I am.
To me that smells alike abuse,and again I could be wrong. He had been reported to the admin noticeboard and that too got reverted.
Please advise
JTS 14:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The blocks themselves (Commons and en wikipedia)
It would be appriciated if you can unblock me (and my talk page) so that I would not have to use my IP for communication. Because of the fact my talk page is disabled, this is an informal unblock request. JTS 14:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)~
Tiptoety's conduct in this matter is not abusive, quite the contrary. If you feel the revoking of talk page access is unjustified, feel free to discuss this with him. I will not overturn another admin's decision in this matter. —Dark06:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember right, it was you that initially blocked me. JTS 12:23, 13 March 2010
I'm going by the origonal block in which Tiptoety Overridden, sorta speak. JTS 11:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way the block should not contine becasuse of the fact that I've been constructive in my attemps to be unblocked, not destructive and tell this to Gnangarra, and yess I ment every word in the comment thats bellow this one. 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There has been some bad behavior from admins and users alike on commons (your not on of em) that's causing me not to get the information on the permission form Stanley J. Anderson that I was talking about. It was sparked by Bmpowell, who dosen't care that I'm trying to get information that could get me unblocked (and thats my opinion notinng more nothing less). E-mailing them probably won't do any good because their stubborn and will believe anything that someone says. Please stop these rogues. They've done some serious collateral damage. 09:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Urgent message relating to blocks
Darkfalls
I've just recieved a message relating to the block on commons and the permission that was sent by Stanley J. Anderson has indead been accepted. However they can't find the files because you had deleteted them. Could you restore theese files so they can finalize the permission and unblock me so I can fix the descrpitive information. Also could you relay this information to the blockwarring admins on commons it would be appriciated. 00:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Admission of block reasons
To all admns on wikipedia and wikimedia commons:
As you all know by now, On January 28 I been accused of copyright violations, edit warring exc and was blocked for it. Since then I had talked to the copyright owner and was granted permission to use those images that were deleted. If you want a copy of the permission, I will gladly provide a copy of the permission, as long as you provide me an e-mail address. I've also had herd some false clams that the permission wasn't genuine. It was sent by Stanley J. Anderson amelia.m@frontier.com) the actual copyright holder.
As far as the edit war, it was just a simple misunderstanding of what was relevant in some articles, happens all the time. However I should not have added to it, it was inexplicable behavior on my part. I am more mild mannered than that.
The socking incidents were also inexplicable behavior on my part. I shouldn't have done it all
I still consider myself a newbee,compared to other users, and other users have been biting me. I've still got a lot to learn about all of the wikiprojects and I will be a good boy on every single one of em, and you'll get what you get, no questions asked. As long as no one gives me grief, we'll get allong just fine. I apologize for everything that I did and you'll have my word that it will never ever happen again
I will urge you in the future to act with civility in your posts. I understand that you feel angry about what has transpired, but using "it" in this context is not the best course of action. —Dark02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely right about civility. The thing is that I could come up with lots of differences to explain why I used "it". SPI request was the last drop only.I will not take it back. I understand that you have a right to block me for that, and it will be the right thing to do. Please do. I will not ask to be unblocked, and of course I will not remove the block message. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably most other admins would have deleted stupid report on vandalism noticeboard and stop on that, but you've done so much more! You are a great administrator. It is a privilege to get to know you. I would have given you the same barnstar even, if you blocked me, because block is nothing in comparison to what the user was doing to me. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to second what Mbz1 is saying. & I thought your summary of the issues here [2] was masterful, objective and carefully researched. You are an admin in a million. :D Stellarkid (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dark. I have archived the message you posted at my talk page, that's why I would like to respond here. I hope you do not mind. I'd like to thank you one more time for everything you have done for me and for your message. I would also like to apologize for some troubles you have found yourself into because of my behavior. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no trouble over my intervention. And on another note, feel free to remove the "disruptive images" templates from your user talk. I see no reason why they cannot be on your talk page. —Dark23:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment at AN/I. You are absolutely right I have to assume good faith no matter what. I have to stop responding no matter what is said or done to me, and treat Wikipedia as just another website. I am really ashamed of myself I got involved in last night disputes after everything you said to me. Sorry. From now on I'm starting a new life, and please feel absolutely free to warn and/or to block me, if I am to break my promise. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking block out again? I was about to decline it for various reasons, including no edits after the last warning. And I'm not convinced this is vandalism either; for one date I checked (the last one), reliable source suggest the IP is actually accurate, changing the death date from 1518 to 1517 per this [3] --Slp1 (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The pattern of date changes look suspicious; I tried finding a fair few of the dates but Google was utterly unreliable. I've unblocked the IP anyway. —Dark12:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at all of the date changes. Though a couple looked on their own to be plausible, the pattern of changing a variety of bio article birth dates by a couple years, all over the course of a few days, seemed extremely unlikely to be good-faith editing. Erictalk13:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly it was a reasonable deduction given the pattern, but having looked into it a bit more I'm still not so sure: so many of the date changes proved to be justified with sourcing. Anyway, as you may have seen, I have left a note on the IP's talkpage and watchlisted it too. If there are problems I will endeavour to take care of them.--Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
