User talk:Theyoyomaster

July 2016

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Shooting of Alton Sterling. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please join the talk page discussion that I started and do not restore this material without obtaining consensus. - Mr X 14:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a novel synthesis or original research. The cited page clearly states the fact of Louisiana law. Open carry is an explicitly defined term and he was not open carrying. The fact that he was not open carrying means that listing the status of open carry in the context of the shooting without explaining what open carry means is deliberately misleading and detracts from the credibility of the article. I will alter it to make it more factual but my reliable sources clearly state the meaning of open carry and the applicable laws as well as the conditions of the shooting. It is a cited and verifiable fact that his gun was in his pocket and as such it was concealed meaning that referencing of the open carry law is blatantly misleading.

Since this deliberate obstruction of the facts of the case is rampant in current news reporting it is relevant to the Wikipedia article to detail the actual laws and their applicability to this case.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Shooting of Alton Sterling, you may be blocked from editing. - Mr X 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disruptive or unsourced. I added a source stating the fact of Louisiana law. This is not original resource and it is not unsourced. I tailored the new response based on your input and kept it 100% factual, sourced and documented. What more do you need?

It is classic synthesis.--TMCk (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand that we don't allow editors to do their own research. Please carefully read the policy and ask questions if something is unclear. You can also try proposing content on the talk page to gauge consensus before making these types of edits.- Mr X 15:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded it with simple fact and cited the specific Louisiana statute. I am currently looking at a way to clean up the open carry sentence since it is incorrect in that it confuses "open carry" with "permitless carry." In LA open carry is permitless but the term "open carry" only applies to the carrying, with or without a permit, of an unconcealed weapon.

You can't use sources that have nothing to do with the shooting of Alton Sterling. Did you read the policy?- Mr X 15:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.--TMCk (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The gun laws in LA are absolutlety relevant to the background of a person shot while carrying a gun, illegally, in LA. The source I cited in my last edit is the direct statute per LA and is 100% relevant, un biased and not "original research." You are mistaking your opinion on what facts you want to see with what is relevant. Theyoyomaster (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of gun laws is relevant if such content has been mentioned by WP:RELIABLE sources in connection with this event. There may well be articles that note Louisiana's gun laws as they pertain to the shooting, and if so, the content may be added to the article. But adding it as a result of one's own knowledge/research isn't usually acceptable. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The gun laws have been mentioned by news sources. There are countless references to LA's open carry statutes. I am clarifying the information introduced by news articles with first party sources. Calling attention to the open carry status of LA without factually explaining what that means is dishonest editing and detracts from the credibility of the article.

Then please refer to the news sources that mention the gun laws, as they pertain to this shooting. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two such citations are already in the sMe paragraph left over from my initial edit. Thw citations are there and my edits are topic. At this point people are trying to suppress fact in favor of promoting personal views on the grounds of Wikipedia beuracracy. The definition of open and concealed carry is 100% on topic, relevant, factual and properly cited.

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).

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

Request reason:

The edits I was making varied based on the discussion in the talk page and the final result is 100% in line with wikipedia standards and relevant to the article at hand. The people reverting my edits are wildly abusing the system and deliberately misapplying thr term "original research" in an attempt to suppress relevant, factual information that they do not personally like. Neutrally and factually describing the laws referenced in news reports while citing the primary source, the statute at the official state website, is not "original research" and based on inputs of previous edits the current text is 100% clear of any hint of synthesis. Stating that a person allegedly had a gun in his pocket then arbitrarily describing open (unconcealed) carry laws is deliberatley misleading and a blatant attempt at misinformation. By listing the basic facts of concealed and open carry with no in-line references to their applicability to this case is the definition of unbiased/relevant information. This page has been hijacked by dishonest editors attempting to push personal agendas by absusing the moderation system of Wikipedia. There is currently a dispute resolution pending and i have faith that any unbiased review will see this deliberate disceipt for what it is. Due to the time sensitive nature and the level of deliberate misinformation i feel it ia necessary to keep the factual edits public until the review is complete to prevent the spread of false facts/opinions. In terms of the 3 revert/warring rules I almost never used the "undo" button and almost every edit was a unique/tweaked response attempting to include both other content added by others as well as addressing the false accusations of "original spource."

Decline reason:

You were edit warring; nothing else here is relevant to your block. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:22, 7 July 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.

Please don't bother emailing me. You were not blocked because of the content of your edits; you were blocked because you were edit warring. It doesn't even matter if you are wrong or if you are right, nor does it matter who might have "started" the edit war. I suggest you use the article talk page; you never have. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 02:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question was what about the others who were edit warring? It takes two sides to go back and forth and I'm not the only one who reverted changes more than 3 times. You are making this seem like reddit where popular opinion is more important than the listed rules. If you actually read my email you would see that I was asking for advice on the wikipedia system more than complaining about the block.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Theyoyomaster reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - Mr X 16:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]