User talk:Dudeskin8

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dudeskin8, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to John Boyega. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 16:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Islamism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2018 (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).

Dudeskin8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hiya, firstly I want to apologise for vandalising the various Islam related pages, I realise how damaging this is to the website and take full responsibility. I can absolutely guarantee this was a one off and if the block was to be overturned it would not happen again. I should have discussed possible changes prior to making them instead of acting rashly. I'd also like to add that I'm still quite new to Wikipedia and so did not become aware of the message saying "This is your only warning" until after I had vandalised a second page. With regards to the block I understand there needs to be punishment for wrongdoing but an indefinite block for maybe a few minutes of misguided editing seems excessive. If the block is to stay in place could it at least be reduced to possibly a week or even a month which still prevents me editing but gives me a chance to redeem myself? Thanks for taking the time to consider this appeal, Dudeskin8/Carl Dudeskin8 (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the edit history, I strongly suspect that you are not the original owner of this account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:57, 14 November 2018 (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.

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).

Dudeskin8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am absolutely the original owner of this account. I made various edits to plant pages 2 years ago when I was studying botany and learning the botanical names of plants, all of which were perfectly above board. Since then I made no edits until early 2018, and then a slew of edits last night over a span of 20 minutes, which I've acknowledged were wrong and should not have been done. I just think it's extremely harsh that I should have a permanent block when a temporary one would seem more adequate. Dudeskin8 (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If those edits over the span of 20 minutes were simple vandalism, that'd be one thing. They weren't. Those sort of edits have no place here and show we should leave you blocked. Yamla (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2018 (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.

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).

Dudeskin8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you explain the difference between "simple vandalism" and what I did, why are those edits unique? Why do I get an instant lifetime block for those edits, surely that would be a last resort after countless acts of vandalism. I'm being lifetime blocked for a 20 minute run of edits on 4 pages, is that not a little extreme?

Also the first response I received was about whether I'm the original owner of the account but now the problem has switched to what I actually did, is there a response to my response to the message from Yunshui

Finally on the edits I made, is it worse because I edited pages on Islam, would I get the response of "Those sort of edits have no place here" on any other topic?Dudeskin8 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In my opinion your edits made this year without exception show a seriously significant racist attitude which is not welcome here. ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:36, 14 November 2018 (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.

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).

Dudeskin8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'd just like to add in relation to my edit on "The Great Replacement conspiracy theory" page that my edit is backed up by an upcoming book by Eric Kaufman, who himself is Jewish hence no white supremacist motivations, titled Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration, and the Future of White Majorities 1st Edition, link here https://www.amazon.com/Whiteshift-Populism-Immigration-Future-Majorities/dp/1468316974. The point being that the replacement of whites is fully acknowledged, it is not a conspiracy theory.

The other edits would need more sources to back them up (which I'd be happy to provide) but clearly not all of my edits last night were vandalism.Dudeskin8 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear racism and religious bigotry, and we do not tolerate that here. Talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2018 (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.

Are you seriously suggesting that Eric Kaufman, because he is Jewish, is automatically thereby absolved of any possibility of being anti-Muslim? ----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:40, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how my edits from last night were "racist"? The ones relating to Islam and the Great Replacement Theory. With regards to the John Boyega edit, his ancestry is Nigerian. If I as a white English man were to be born in Nigeria I would not be Nigerian, I would be English in Nigeria. White South Africans who have been in the country for centuries are still not seen as "real Africans" by black South Africans, would you call them racist too?

Why would you claim Eric Kaufman is "anti-Muslim"? He is looking at the decline of white majorities around the world, what does that have to do with Muslims? Dudeskin8 (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]