This user is willing to be slapped with a trout, should they need it.

This user is busy and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Hi DarklitShadow, You recently multiple-tagged Hyperbaric medicine but did not take the trouble to explain your tagging on the talk page, so it is difficult to understand exactly what you expect to be done to improve the article. Please make the effort to indicate what you think is wrong with the article in enough detail to allow a competent editor to fix what you think is wrong. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by the number of articles you've tagged without a single edit on any of their talk pages to explain your concerns. There are two essays that you may find helpful: Wikipedia:Tagging pages for problems and Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Although drawing attention to specific problems on articles is usually helpful, applying multiple tags is often far too general to be of any help. I've reverted you at Hyperbaric medicine for the following reasons:

• ((confusing)) has a |reason= that you need to fill in to explain why you find it confusing.
• ((lead too long)) is specifically for "articles with more than four paragraphs in their lead section" according to its documentation. Hyperbaric medicine has just four relatively short paragraphs and the template is clearly inappropriate.
• ((overly detailed)) is for "articles which ... have excessive information about trivial subjects" according to its documentation. You have made no attempt to suggest what trivial information is in the article, and frankly I disagree that any of its content is trivial, by any definition of the word.
• ((prose)) has some validity because several sections contain bulleted lists. However Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists #Long sequences indicates that there are circumstances when a list is preferable to a long prose list. I believe that is the case for Hyperbaric medicine #Medical uses, Hyperbaric medicine #Contraindications, Hyperbaric medicine #Construction. if you disagree, please start a section on the talk page to discuss, otherwise consider using ((Prose|section)) in the sections that you believe need cleanup.

I hope that makes clear my concern with your edits in that article. You may wish to review your other, similar contributions in the light of that. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarklitShadow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Brompton Regis, however I don't understand what other categories you think should be included. It is in Category:Villages in West Somerset and that is what the article is about.— Rod ^talk 19:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarklitShadow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarklitShadow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DarklitShadow. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DarklitShadow. Could you please change your signature so that it at least resembles your username? It is quite misleading at the moment. Thanks. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Order of Bernardo O'Higgins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Keenan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps rather than marking pages as bare url you could learn to repair them. i have done so to a few you have marked in less time than i expect you took to mark them. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to start fixing them myself.

DarklitShadow (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you put a tag on the page about references. Just curious to know what is wrong with them?

Benawu2 (talk) 01:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also wondering if you could be more specific (i.e. do you mean it needs more references or do you mean the format needs fixing?) Thank you. (Happy Holidays.) RJFJR (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DarklitShadow: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—¿philoserf? (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello DarklistShadow,

Please make sure to double-check your outputs when you're using reFill to fill bare citation URLs. Sometimes, such as at 2010–11 Western Collegiate Hockey Association women's ice hockey season, reFill removes parts of the URL and ends up with a citation that is not helpful (the Ohio State Buckeye website). Also, please check to see if reFill produces garbage/unhelpful outputs such as at 2011 Sun Life Classic if a URL got usurped or the domain expired. Thank you for your work on removing bare URLs, though! CheesedToMeetYou (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a detailed how-to regarding a way to tell reFill to ignore specific entries?

DarklitShadow (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do not know - I don't use reFill. CheesedToMeetYou (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned by an edit you recently made at Penmanshiel Tunnel, where you added ((Primary sources)), ((Unreliable sources)), and ((Cleanup bare URLs)) without even using the |reason= parameter, let alone leaving a talk-page message. Based on my examination of the article, there is only one improper citation of a primary source – and that citation also happens to be the only bare URL. It supports one small section that, in all fairness, is original research; but arguably of low importance and certainly not contentious. All of the other citations appear to be secondary sources, with one or two tertiary publications as well, and none of them appear to be unreliable. I would remind you of the guidelines at WP:CLEANUPTAG, which reflect the expectation that Wikipedia editors will attempt to fix simple problems themselves rather than leaving tags (don't tag an article if you can easily and confidently fix the problem – the goal is an improved article, not a tagged article), and particularly of the expectation that editors should not perform "drive-by" tagging: Tags must be accompanied by either a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter (available in all templates, regardless whether it appears in the documentation) as shown below. At the very least, tagging editors must be willing to follow through with substantive discussion.
I have checked your contributions history and it appears that of your 500 most-recent edits, the vast majority – if not all – have been drive-by taggings. I further notice that at least six other editors have advised you on this page of concerns regarding this practice, going right back to within days of your starting to edit in July 2016. Please note these points and be more considerate of other editors' time in the future. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Drive-By Tagging: I realize this is a bit of a problem for me and I will try to do better. I am 100% open to Mentorship if this continues to be a problem. (My skill with HTML is horrid as I explained here.

Regarding the tags themselves: reFill isn't working right now. I opened a ticket on phabricator.

Regarding the article in question: My main concern is reference #9.

I'm also not skilled (or confident) enough (and probably never will be) to be able to figure out how to place the footnote for a new source I found. (Example [1])

DarklitShadow (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, #9 is the one I guessed you were concerned about. Unfortunately, your tagging the entire article with three different clean-up templates was a bad way of dealing with it. At the very least, you should have explained that you had concerns about #9 when you left the tags, which would help people to know why you've tagged the article. But really, tagging the article was unhelpful anyway because it was disproportionate. There's simply no need to apply tags to the entire article when your concern only relates to one individual citation, and especially when that citation only appears once in the article. There's even less need when another editor has already placed in-line tags highlighting that citation as being a primary source and a bare URL, which they did in November 2015.

Applying all three tags also goes against the guideline don't insert tags that are similar or redundant. If the source is unreliable, then just put that tag on – it doesn't matter if it's a bare URL if it needs to be replaced or removed anyway.

As to your skill, I understand that Wikipedia has a lot of complicated processes and policies that can be tough to understand and remember. Most other experienced editors here also understand this, and are very happy to be patient and accommodating with people who are still learning. Part of that learning process is learning how to identify problems with articles, which you're definitely working at, so that's good. However, people are also going to expect you to point out the exact nature of the problems you find, and to try to learn how to fix at least some of them, even without tools like reFill. I would strongly advise you check out guides like Help:Referencing for beginners and try to get some practice at making basic fixes to begin with. You can also ask for advice at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have questions or need help. XAM2175 ^(T) 00:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to put a similar suggestion. But seems it has been taken care. Just one more thing, please do not put negative comments on the talk page either. Best regards and Happy New Year! nirmal (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for fixing the bare links on Kanuri language recently. I noticed, though, that the URL you added is a spam site (the original URL was probably taken over/redirected) so I removed/fixed the links. I haven't used reFill so I'm not very familiar with it but you might want to double-check the results it gives. Thanks! flod logic (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

DarklitShadow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

BitDefender VPN is turned on. Block exemption flag process was started via external email to checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org per instructions. No response was received and no flag was ever added. DarklitShadow (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are a limited number of checkusers, who do what they can do when they can do it, in their free time. Please be patient. 331dot (talk) 07:07, 7 May 2023 (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.

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § AI for WP guidelines/ policies. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 09:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]