User talk:MG2020DTC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, I'm GoodCrossing. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Hey, I've noticed you're editing the text to make it more neutral. To be honest, I'm also quite new so I'm not sure if it should be further updated but thanks for contributing! GoodCrossing (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

As previously advised, your edits give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:MG2020DTC, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MG2020DTC|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. GSS ^💬 05:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi GSS. You are incorrect in your assumption. Please educate yourself by reading the edit thread and comments between me and GoodCrossing. --> "Hey, I've noticed you're editing the text to make it more neutral. To be honest, I'm also quite new so I'm not sure if it should be further updated but thanks for contributing! GoodCrossing (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)" --MG2020DTC (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I have reverted the article to the previous version that meets Wikipedias Guidelines and was edited with the help of GoodCrossing before you intervened. Please take note that this version provides valuable, non biased information based on the following :

provide accurate references for information that's already in the article (and we have a strong preference that the reference/citation be a reliable source) add or update facts, such as a person's date or place of birth, a company's location or number of employees, or details of a recent event - and if you do, please add a reference/citation; otherwise, other editors have no way of knowing if the change is true or not^[1]MG2020DTC (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is very clear evidence to support my claim and your edit has been reverted back so, please do not revert back and see WP:DISCLOSEPAY and WP:3RR. GSS ^💬 17:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way and that you feel entitled to bully me. Please see WP:3RR yourself and adhere to that rule, as you were the first person to revert changes, you will be in breach of this before I am. Thanks. MG2020DTC (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at The Plum Guide shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. GSS ^💬 17:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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:MG2020DTC reported by User:InvalidOS (Result: ). Thank you. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning if you make any further edits without responding to the inquiry you received regarding undisclosed paid editing. moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I have already replied. The user:GSS has been spamming a page for no apparent reason. Said users edits should get him blocked, as he started the war. MG2020DTC (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at The Plum Guide. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2020 (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).

MG2020DTC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

This is absurd. user:GSS is spamming and bullying for absolutely no legitimate reason. Said user has blocked me for edit warring however, if you see the history user:gss is the one who is warring and has undone changes that follow all guidelines and were beneficial to wikipedia users. Community members, please help!

Decline reason:

Your unblock request should address only your actions, not the actions of others, as you were blocked for what you did not for what others did. You were not blocked by GSS, but by Bbb23. As for edit warring by GSS, removing copyright violations is a specified exception to the prohibition of edit warring. As you have not addressed your actions, I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2020 (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.

MG2020DTC (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

Request reason:

blocked for what I did? Really? Do you people just get off by trying to be authoritative on here because you don't have authority in your real life? Or, perhaps you are friends with GSS, or another account held by GSS? If you actually looked at the contribution the GSS undid you would see that it provides useful, non biased information that greatly improved the article from where it was and where it is currently. This is me addressing my actions. I made meaningful, helpful contributions to this Wikipedia page which is what this platform is for. Or is it? Apparently not to you and GSS. You would rather undo and control, which is EXACTLY what this platform is here to combat!

Maybe you should be banned a well. Isn't a moderator supposed to keep the spammers in check not harass the people trying to contribute? You can also see that GSS continues to harass users like me who are actually trying to CONTRIBUTE See the most recent post on the page in question: 01:27, 8 February 2020‎ EMmegLY talk contribs‎ 8,962 bytes +5,988‎ Restoring the article to improved version. Please do not continue the edit war. - this was undone again by GSS. Yet, you obviously don't care about wikipedia standards, you just like to quote them. MG2020DTC (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please read what 331dot said. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:25, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

MG2020DTC (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've revoked your access to this page. If you are not more temperate in your conduct when this block expires, you risk being indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

Continuing to edit war using IPs and evading your block using the second IP has landed you with an indefinite block. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects

Related Articles