User talk:YatesByron

YatesByron, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi YatesByron! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shiva Ayyadurai. Thank you. ... richi (hello) 22:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Shiva Ayyadurai. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Gestrid (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've raised concerns on noticeboard. The addition of the first sentence was done by an anonymous person and is persisting and clearly appears as violation of WP policy and in response the recent Gawker settlement to defame Ayyadurai. Why are editors allowing this to continue? YatesByron (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)YatesByron[reply]

I'm not sure because I'm not actively involved with that page. Perhaps Richi could help explain the situation. — Gestrid (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Motorcycle. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. See MOS:LQ. General Ization ^Talk 21:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will look at the Manual provided in the link. Much appreciated. YatesByron (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Shiva Ayyadurai, you may be blocked from editing. ... richi (hello) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richi is performing "disruptive editing" by removing facts as he is BIASED AGAINST AYYADURAI. He has gone on Social Media and has stated Ayyadurai did not invent email. I've posted on the noticeboard that He's not biased?! He along with a cabal is clearly into defaming Ayyadurai. I stated the facts that Ayyadurai has 4 degrees. Richi immediately deleted it. Ayyadurai has four degrees and it is referenced and verified with MIT. Are you going to block me for stating facts?! Richi is a meatpuppet and it appears Gestrid is part of this nonsense. BTW 4 other publications refer to Ayyadurai based on facts. However, your cabal deletes them on the biased assumption that he did not invent email. You are asserting opinions about Univision. Again as others have said you are biased, and it is reflected in the editing. This must end. I dare you to delete that he does not have 4 degrees. I want an investigation on Richi.YatesByron (talk) 23:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That he has four degrees has been well cited and has not been removed from the article. That he did not, in 1978, invent something that existed over five years beforehand, is also well cited. I fail to see the difficulty. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been blocked? For restating WP Policy against libel and stating that comments here can be used in the Courts? This is a fact. I believe the real reason was that my edits and my Talk page comments were exposing the meatpuppetry and collusion. I expect to be unblocked immediately. I saw a video where Ayyadurai was doing a talk, and sharing the comments of another Wikipedia Editor who communicated to him talking about how the senior Wiki Editor himself was abused and attacked for sharing facts about Ayyadurai. This is a formal demand for restating my account. I've not violated any WP policies. I also did not receive any responses on Richi Meatpuppetry investigation. Does anyone who gets as aggressive on sharing the facts of Ayyadurai's invention of email get abused like this? Yet, those who are aggressive and committed to defaming his reputation are allowed. I think WikiMedia foundation should be concerned about litigation not only because this behavior is wrong, malicious and unethical but because they are setting themselves up for a lawsuit. This is not a threat, but meant to be of service to WP. However, it appears those who just blocked me neither care about Wikimedia nor WP nor its policies and are willing to allow their personal self interests, and who ever they are working for, take precedence over the Foundation's values and goals.YatesByron (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked because of this talk page message. Your statement that "All of the material here can be used in litigation. And, any and all of you can be deposed" has been broadly interpreted as a legal threat. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to focus on the article and on-Wikipedia concerns. That means you should not mention off-Wikipedia legal actions, as that causes a chilling effect on discussion. If you want to be unblocked, you will need to make clear that you are not contemplating legal action or participation in legal action against other Wikipedia editors. You will also need to refrain from further comments about off-Wiki legal consequences. —C.Fred (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should appeal your block below; administrators will not necessarily see comments here. If you have a specific accusation of meatpuppetry and/or collusion to make, you should start a sockpuppet investigation.

Personally speaking, I am not at all happy about the accusations of racism you have bandied about. I appreciate that Ayyadurai has been the subject of some repugnantly racist remarks recently. That does not mean that I had anything whatsoever to do with them; my reluctance to accept that someone could in 1978 invent something that existed in or before 1973 is entirely a factor of the obvious impossibility of such an occurrence. I know people personally who used email before 1978; there is an enormous body of evidence that it existed before 1978. One might as well claim that India achieved independence in 1985; it simply cannot be so. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear C.Fred. my intention was to alert the Senior people that there is collusion taking place and this is in violation of Wiki policies and jeopardizes all of us. Mr. Pinkbeast continues his effort to deny this, which is obvious to any person of color looking at the edits. I will not mention off Wikipedia legal actions any further. However, how do I alert the senior leadership of what I'm experiencing on the ground? Kindly unblock me. I'm new to all of this and am open to learning your ways of exposition. I want to contribute to the accuracy of the content on Wikipedia, without prejudice.YatesByron (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinkbeast continues to taunt me. I suppose people of color react differently than White people. Our journey of oppression is different than yours, and therefore may be similar. I frankly find you and others manner of writing done not only similar, but almost finishing each other statements --- it's seem like an old boy's network, where anyone with different opinions and facts is not only unwelcome but taunted, tormented, and BLOCKED --- literally. This is not what I heard Wikipedia was about. Let's start being fair and objective. The paranoia of being sued is perhaps coming from your own guilt.

Kindly notify Pinkbeast that he should stop taunting me and thinking people of color speak (e.g. look) the same. This is racist!YatesByron (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)mutual respect is the linchpin of deliberate discourse.[reply]

In order to request an unblock, please follow the instructions given in the "You've been blocked" notification below. That will automatically notify admins that you've requested one, and they will review your edits to this talk page since your being blocked and decide whether or not to unblock you. — Gestrid (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mutual respect is critical in collegial, constructive discourse. That's why the WP:Assume good faith policy exists. If you have been making accusations of racism, though, that goes against that policy. @Pinkbeast: Please leave a message with diffs to the comments you're concerned about so I can review them and the context that preceded them. Please leave the message on my talk page in the interest of keeping the conversation here running smoothly. —C.Fred (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have no idea what you are talking about. Are you a person of color?!! Do you know when you are being taunted? I am attempting to share facts and legitimate citations concerning an individual who has been attacked by defamatory articles, written by a reporter who has professed that enjoys bullying people everyday. That article went to tens of millions by a reporter not doing journalism. Ayyadurai won a court case settlement on this. He WON--- much to the chagrin of many of you. Ayyadurai following this deplorable article was then, on blog posts, referred to as "nigger Indian" and "curry-stained Indian" based on those articles. Continuing to deny the facts, as is going on in the Talk pages, by more than likely 95% White people or more who have participated in the defamation and denial of those facts, while the facts are black and white is racist. It systemic.

Now are you going to unblock me or what?

I was following YOUR policies on the Talk pages before I posted. I was following YOUR policy on finding eminent and legitimate citations. In fact, my last post was to respond to Barte's ABSURD DENIAL that Ayyadurai is NOT AN INVENTOR? I went to the USPTO site and found his patents as well as 169 citations of his patents. In patents, the citations are what is important. He is not only an inventor but also the inventor of email. The fact that I independently came to these conclusions from the facts, not from the opinions of some biased old white guys with their vested interest, is why I was blocked.Your actions speak for themselves. Unblock me!YatesByron (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for a legal threat. Your race and my race are not immediate concerns in that matter. Bringing the race of any editor into the discussion goes against the Wikipedia guideline of focusing on content and not on the editors. If you did feel you were being taunted, you should have requested assistance from the administrators' noticeboard; it is not acceptable for you to escalate the matter with a legal threat on the article's talk page.

I have not looked at the subject matter in the article. I do not intend to look at the subject matter in the article; since I am acting in an administrative capacity concerning your editing behaviour (WP:NLT and allegations related to WP:NPA), I need to remain uninvolved with respect to the content of the article in question. —C.Fred (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable. So it's okay for a bunch of thugs to remove actual facts and citations that are withing WP policy because they have decided that he is not the inventor of email. YOU SHOULD look at the content. I've seen others attempt to post facts that other large news organizations have referred to him as the inventor of email, and those are removed. While keeping organizations that removed them after being pressured by industry insiders from Raytheon/ARPANET gang. This is an organized effort at defaming the facts. And, what's disgusting is that dialog per the Talk page to which I was following the rules WP set resulted in my being BLOCKED when I warned that this kind of behavior was libellous, defamatory and could lead to litigation? Clearly, the old boy's club on this page know how to use the rules to throw off newbies like myself, when we speak the truth. ARE YOU GOING TO UNBLOCK ME? OR GOING TO STAND BEHIND THE BULLSHIT narrative that is being built on misrepresenting a person of color? The editors on this page are denigrating the ethics, integrity and values of WP. Are you expecting me to say "sorry" for something I have not done? What's up here?YatesByron (talk) 02:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW it is 9.02PM EST on November 10, 2016 and all items are being signed as though they are on November 11, 2016 and the wrong time. Something is wrong.YatesByron (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All comments are signed using Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), where it is currently November 11. Nothing is wrong. — Gestrid (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any administrator may lift the block without reference to me if satisfied that the legal threat has been withdrawn. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

YatesByron, if you do not stop making accusations of racism without providing evidence, or if you keep attacking other editors without addressing their concerns (which appear to me to have been presented in an entirely reasonable manner), I will revoke your ability to edit this page. I strongly suggest that the next thing you post here is a civil unblock request that addresses the reason for your block and convinces a reviewing admin that it would be to the benefit of the project to have you back and able to edit. The block message contains instructions on how to request unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Please note that you have been included in a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mattsabe. If you have anything you wish to say there, please post it here and I (or someone else) will copy it across for you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! Why am I still blocked? Kindly unblock me. I humbly request this.YatesByron (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't originally blocked for being a possible sockpuppet. As the big orange notice above says, You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action, not for being a sockpuppet. — Gestrid (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and then request an unblock using the instructions given above. — Gestrid (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]