User talk: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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Basa lisk inspect damage⁄berate 20:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)