User talk:Dadude sandstorm

Welcome!

Hi Dadude sandstorm! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Kmhkmh (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at International public opinion on the war in Afghanistan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. See [1], [2]

Before continuing to add content to Wikipedia, please read WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, WP:OR, and WP:LEAD // Timothy :: talk 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Efforts to impeach George W. Bush. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. See [3]

Before continuing to edit, please read WP:OR, WP:CITE, WP:V and WP:BURDEN. // Timothy :: talk 23:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dadude sandstorm! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] are a few examples // Timothy :: talk 00:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that clarification. I thought it was applicable for small changes in wording etc. daruda (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at List of generic and genericized trademarks, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You're wasting everyone's time. BLP (biography of living person) articles always use a contemporary photo for the infobox, except in cases where no contemporary photos are available. That's a given. I suggest you drop the stick. Ieonine (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Democratic Party (United States), you may be blocked from editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one being disruptive with your constant reverts. I have clearly taken care to mention loads of respected and wikipedia-accepted sources, whilse your reverts just seem to amount to 'NO!' with the way your edit summaries are written daruda (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were being constructive, you'd be forming consensus on the talk page rather than engaging in original research and synthesis of sources, which is what you're doing. Stop now. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrate a repeated lack of understanding of what original research is. My edits have just slightly tweaked the articles and I've repeatedly provided several sources and citations.

You keep reverting mindlessly so it's not like I'm gonna bother arguing. daruda (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

DanCherek (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm Ïvana. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Destiny (streamer), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Ïvana (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump raised fist photographs. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Ya said an IP had low IQ. TheWikiToby (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Dadude sandstorm. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of the biographies of living persons policy (at Michael Moore and Destiny (streamer) then doubling down) and making a personal attack which, when offering to retract, you continued to be incivil and dismissive.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, Callanecc; I came here to ask about this comment, referring to an IP contributor as "biased... with a low IQ take". Way to cast aspersions, insult someone and manage to question their mental health all in just five words. ——Serial Number 54129 09:16, 15 July 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

How was I incivil and dismissive? I sincerely apologized for the lapse in editing discipline in the comment criticizing the IP while simply mentioning why the lapse in discipline had taken place, and the link you've mentioned clearly shows that My sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia. This comment was clearly conciliatory and apologetic and I had no intention of dismissing his concern whatsoever so I apologize if I came off as incivi. The Michael Moore statement was a rather absurdly racist statement which directly contradicted the ethos of Wikipedia:No racists, and so I felt that a clear demarcation of the racism would be valid. Upon being reverted I made no attempt to engage in an edit war or anything of the sort. Similarly while I fully take responsiblity and apologize for the rather stupid and immature edit adding details of Destiny being a 'cuck' to his article, the other addition, which i was defending, was simply about him espousing political violence and extremism. My response (doubling down) was about the entire edit which included some sentences about how he had espoused extremist rhetoric. I accepted that the cuck part was inappropriate and wrong. Furthermore, I've realized, especially after it being pointed out and reinforced now, that a major problem with my editing is my looseness with references, especially for the Biography articles. I promise to have the strictest standards for referencing possible from now on for such articles, as while other topics aren't nearly as likely a source for libelous material, a biography should be treated with the most careful of hands, or in this case words. I will greatly increase my usage of well-backed inline citations, which should have been obvious, especially with my tendency (so far) to add contentious edits (whether it's true or not being irrelevant if there's no proper sourcing). I apologize for these infarctions and humbly request that I be unblocked. I understand that there's a very strict code to follow when talking about biographies of living people. I have gained a much better understanding of the rigorous lines one must follow while editing such sensitive articles. As this is my first time being blocked, I kindly ask for a reconsideration of the length of the block, as this has been a learning experience for me which my possible future edits will be a clear sign of. I promise never to repeat such editing behavior. daruda (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2024 (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.

Dadude sandstorm, woudl you like to address your comment that Destiny is a lowly human being? [9]. starship .paint (RUN) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for letting my emotions get a hold of me. Seeing the things he's said over the last 24 hours really triggered me and I rather foolishly let it out on wikipedia which was an incredibly stupid and immature decision on my part. Whatever my feelings on the guy and no matter what his character, I understand that I shouldn't have let this break my editing discipline by so blatantly breaking all the rules of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I sincerely apologize for my unseemly comments on this platform and I promise to hold myself to a higher standard. daruda (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your own words, would you please explain when references are required to support statements on Wikipedia, and how this intersects with WP:BLP and WP:NOR? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's rather clear as after I thoroughly went through my edit history after being blocked, I noticed how a "major problem with my editing is my looseness with references", especially for the Biography articles . The edits I've made to WP:BLP articles so far have often come out looking highly editorialistic in nature because while some might be right in the particular context, the lack of an iron-clad source, verifiable (which is a must for these articles considering their more sensitive nature) makes my edits come out looking poorly when compared to the strict standards WP:NOR enforces. My rosenbaum edit, for example, or even my 'left wing extremist' edit etc are all technically correct, but it was very stupid of me to not be far more vigilant in how I used references there. As these are contentious claims against living people (and as was obvious soon after, very likely to be challenged), I should have made verifiable, properly sourced, and cleaner edits, rather than empty links, (or even no links in some edits.). I understand that such measures are important to maintain Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and not some silly looking diary where people make contentious edits about other people but have no iron-clad verification to let a viewer know their claim is right, and even if the claim is right, some edits, like the cuck edit, are just absurd and inappropriate.

I'd like to sincerely apologize for that btw, as I was really irritated by his obscene celebration of death on social media, so I made a very stupid decision to editorialize, and to add the cherry on top, I didn't even source it well enough for it to matter. I knew full well it was in violation of wikipedia rules but I still did it, rather stupidly, because I was just so darn astonished by his behavior, so I let that anger cloud my judgement.

I hope I can contribute to this online encylopedia again in a much more constructive form. Being perma-blocked just like that gave me a stark reminder that no matter what my feeling on a subject and no matter how justified that might be, it's objectively wrong to ruin the experience of other people who use/view Wikipedia by breaking its rules and stupidly trolling around. It was especially stupid of me as I enjoy editing as it is a means of informing the world around us of the various things that happen on a day to day basis. I transgressed that positive spirit. I am truly sorry. daruda (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any update? @Red-tailed hawk @Starship.paint daruda (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can take a while for an admin to get around to reviewing unblock requests because they have to review your contribution history along with the context of your edits and assessing whether your words since your block are sufficient to establish whether or not you are likely to reoffend. It's not a simple "Yes" or "No". Please be patient. Take it this way, you haven't been told "No" yet so your appeal is still being considered. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:48, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't mean to badger anyone.

I was just unsure whether the decision was a No or still hanging in balance because there was an update on another page after my reply, but none here. daruda (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not actually an admin so naturally I cannot perform an unblock. starship .paint (RUN) 01:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads-up daruda (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]