Dave johnson129

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to 2013 Southern California shootings. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

2013 Southern California shootings

Here's a tip: Simply wanting information to be included in Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Information submitted must meet notability requirements, and must be documented by reliable sources. The International Business Times article doesn't support the hypotheses, it only reports that some YouTuber posted a video. The fringe opinion of some YouTuber speculating about a police conspiracy does not meet notability requirements, any more than my opinions do. As long as your submission do not meet Wikipedia standards, they will be reverted. If you continue to add the same information, it will be considered disruptive and vandalism. Further, if you are the YouTuber who is attempting to wedge his polarized perspective into an encyclopedic article, keep in mind that is an unethical conflict of interest, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for neutral point of view and it is considered self-promotion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Indeed. I removed the baseless warnings you left on another editor's talk page: more such disruption will result in an indefinite block, since I have yet to see evidence that you are here to improve the encyclopedia, and not just to gain airtime for your conspiracy theory. The article that was linked, though, made for interesting reading, esp. for what it had to say about the YouTuber Chris j. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Articles on Wikipedia do not give fringe material equal weight to majority viewpoints; content in articles are given representation in proportion to their prominence. If you continue in this manner, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for for tendentious editing. It's clear that you're not here to build an encyclopaedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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).

Dave johnson129 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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. Kinu ^t/_c 21:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

---

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.