User talk:Gogborn12

July 2019
Hello, I'm Creffett. I noticed that you recently removed content from José Rijo without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. creffett (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you decided to add back the pejorative information regarding Jose Rijo on his page. As I stated, the section I edited is filled with negative, unsubstantiated allegations. There is a reference to a murder and a reference to money laundering. Jose Rijo has never been accused of this in a court of law. Why do you insist on including this information in his profile? Who wrote this original contribution? Gogborn12 (talk) 03:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Jose Rijo
The information on Jose Rijo is unnecessarily pejorative. It includes information regarding unsubstantiated allegations - involvement with a murder, money laundering, etc. The real question is: why was this information included in the first place? Clearly there is a great deal of subjectivity on the type of information included. Jose Rijo is an honorable man living a quiet life in Miami. He is not to be defined on Wikipedia by a negative edit made several years ago. My question to you is: why did you add this information back into his profile? Gogborn12 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Discuss on the talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019
Your recent editing history at José Rijo 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. creffett (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I’ve attempted to talk with Creffett about his automatic reversions to Jose Rijo’s page. The responses are not satisfactory. I want to know who initially included the unsubstantiated allegations. Until the claims are substantiated, they should be deleted from the page. Creffett is including information that claims Jose was involved in illegal activity. Jose has never been accused of this activity in a court of law. Why is it on the Wikipedia page? That is my simple question. Gogborn12 (talk) 03:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * a. you are guilty of edit warring and can be blocked if you do this again. b. it's helpful, if you're going to be on some website, to know the rules. c. here, you could have learned the rules and invoked our policy on biographies of living people, which would exempt you from the charge of edit warring; see WP:BLP, and especially WP:BLPREMOVE. What you're doing now is the equivalent of walking into someone's house and pissing on the rug. d. you are not correct: there is no "allegation of murder". Please read more carefully: he was subpoenaed about information related to a murderer whom he had business dealings with. Whether that's relevant enough to warrant inclusion is another matter, but you made a clearly incorrect charge. e. the other charge related to money laundering is also just a report on an investigation, well sourced. Again, whether that's relevant enough is another matter, but you will have to be much more careful if you want to get anything done. f. you have not done a very good job of "attempting to talk" with the other editor--in fact, you suggested they have some sort of agenda and are trying to tarnish someone's reputation. That's a bullshit charge; it's rude and unwarranted, besides a clear example of an argumentum ad hominem. g. finally, you have no good reason whatsoever to remove the entire damn section. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Drmies - you don’t know what you are talking about. This is false. You are lying and defaming another person unfairly. I am NOT pissing on someone else’s rug. You have done the equivalent of the pissing. I’ve merely brought in the rug shampoo and am attempting to clean up the mess you and others have created. I will get this fixed, one way or another. Mark my words. What is included here is patently false, and I won’t rest until it is corrected. I am not concerned about your capricious rules. Gogborn12 (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, Drmies - I am 100% willing to give you my name, phone number, work phone number, email, physical address. I am willing to address this man-to-man - not hiding behind some silly online name created to remain anonymous. Gogborn12 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So I just read the links you sent to me. I could NOT AGREE MORE with what you yourself sent to me. It’s advises that editors take the greatest care when writing about living people. It also states that there should be an eye toward neutrality. Are you familiar with that word? Apparently not since you are including false, pejorative, and derogatory information about Jose Rijo. I am the neutral party attempting to remove the defamatory language. For some odd reason you are objecting to that - clearly you have some sort of agenda - and it’s not a good one. Shameful. Gogborn12 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)