User talk:Dsaun100

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the revision history, Mike Greenberg mentioned on the March 25, 2014 broadcast of Mike & Mike that his middle name was Darrow. It came out of his own mouth. Dsaun100 (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is not reliable source. People lie about their age, name, nationality, etc. Please stop. Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a reliable source? Are you joking? It's HIS own name. Going by your logic, anything mentioned on his page could be construed as a lie. After all, he had to provide ESPN with his name, date of birth, etc. So, how do we know that the information provided by the company is legitimate? You need to stop with your nonsense. Dsaun100 (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any critical bio information sourced to himself may be removed. However, if it was published by some reliable source, from his words, we may keep it, trusting that "they" (the organization behind the source) verified his information. Materialscientist (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, how do you know "they" aren't lying either? Or, how do you know that "they" even verified his information? For all we know, according to your logic, he could have lied about his name to ESPN, or lied about any other biographic information, and they believed him. You're on a very slippery slope with your logic. Dsaun100 (talk) 13:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Your recent editing history at Super Bowl 50 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Bagumba (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Super Bowl 50. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. –Davey2010^Talk 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (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).

Dsaun100 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I asked the user, multiple times, to discuss the edits in Super Bowl 50's "Talk" page, and he refused. I discussed the topic with another user in the "Talk" page, who agreed with my sentiments. I was trying to be cordial, while the other individual ignored my pleas to discuss the matter. Dsaun100 (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That isn't an excuse to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2016 (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.

Then you seek help and go to a noticeboard .... You don't just revert and edit war just because the other editor won't discuss it...., Personally I believe if you're unblocked you'll simply go back to warring so IMHO the block should stay but I'm not an admin ... just an observer. –Davey2010^Talk 21:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except I engaged in discussion first (which you can see by going to the "Talk" page of the article), whereas the other user refused to do so, along with removing sourced content. He just kept reverting the edits without any merit whatsoever. We'll see if he continues this practice once the blocks are removed, or if he'll actually discuss the issue at hand, before attempting any further reverts. Dsaun100 (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using edit summaries to say other editors are lying[edit]

is the sort of thing that could easily get you blocked again. Just stop. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did stop until that editor decided to provoke me again. That editor should stop harassing me, then this all could have been avoided. Dsaun100 (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dsaun, you are being your own worst enemy here. Doug Weller is an administrator and an arbitrator here. In short, he is at the top of the Wikipedia food chain. He has made nearly 150,000 edits. If Serena Williams told you you were playing tennis incorrectly, would you argue with her or justify your actions? Not if you were smart. She is one of the best in her field. Up at the top of your talk page, you argued repeatedly with Materialscientist, another well respected highly experienced (over 100,000 edits) editor about using information from the subject of an article as a source. You were indisputably wrong, but yet you argued from your incorrect position to the point that if would have been more experienced, it would have earned you a block. A few years later, you do exactly the same thing on Super Bowl 50. This time you did get blocked. Instead of viewing everyone here as your enemy, please try to learn from your mistakes. No one here has the time or the energy to "hold grudges". We do, however, care that this gets done right. You exhibit very poor understanding of policy and guidelines here and virtually no understanding of how things work. When people who have done this much more than you tell you that you are doing it wrong, don't go getting your hackles up. Just take what they say to heart, learn from your mistakes, ask questions and move on. John from Idegon (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon: You should take your own advice. I was moving on from all of this, but you couldn't contain yourself. You just had to go to my "Talk" page, on your own volition, and chime in. You show no respect for editors, and now, you're trying to make this personal. You demonstrate poor judgment yourself, not to mention, poor understanding of policy, guidelines and how things work. Your hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitude is nauseating. Just because you, or somebody else, has more editing experience gives you no right to attack me. As to the examples you cited, I wasn't wrong about Mike Greenberg, and that was proven, as his middle name has been added to the page. Regarding Super Bowl 50, I wasn't the only one who was blocked, so singling me out for that is disingenuous. Another administrator was kind and calm enough to resolve a dispute concerning Jim Brown and Julian Edelman, of which you participated. Your condescending attitude doesn't help matters, so next time you engage in a dispute, be more respectful of opposing opinions, and don't be so quick to attack others or request blocks, like you did earlier (which, by the way, was struck down by that administrator I mentioned previously). Dsaun100 (talk) 07:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the comparison with Kobe Bryant's page is pretty reasonable. We can't censor stories based in tested information, and let me remind you that the 'alleged sexual harassment' part was in the article for years before new information came in January of 2016. Remember that the Controversies section was redacted as allegation stories they are, and not as accusation stories. And I can cite the Bill Belichick's page which include a Spygate section as a example.

Leo Bonilla (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Leo Bonilla: I'm not the one who said information like that shouldn't be included. This was part of a consensus on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, regarding similar content for Jim Brown and Julian Edelman. You should discuss this further on Talk:Peyton Manning, as I created a section about it, titled "Inclusion of 'Controversy' section." Dsaun100 (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsaun100: I did it. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Dsaun100. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Edelman[edit]

The incident you point out was an allegation which was dismissed. Generally, those are not notable. As for your comment about "but Peyton's article has it", see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINT. While Edelman isn't "relatively unknown", the principle in WP:BLPCRIME applies - there was no conviction, he is presumed innocent. Tarl N. (discuss) 08:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: The same logic could be applied to your rationale of removing the content. Peyton Manning wasn't convicted either, but yet, that allegation remains on his page. This was brought up a while back on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and at the time, it was determined that the sections should be removed from both pages. However, now, there seems to be a different standard being applied for each player. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Julian Edelman shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:14, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked before for this behaviour. You are engaging in WP:POINT, WP:3RR, and potential WP:BLP violations. Open a discussion on the talk page, do not re-revert. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: Nice try, but you're not an administrator. And if you are, you're clearly abusing your power, seeing as how you've violated the three-revert rule, hypocrite. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tarl N.: I've responded. You're just as guilty, as you violated the three-revert rule first, which I pointed out there. Dsaun100 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alert[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.