User talk:OdinNeith

Hi OdinNeith, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Majun e Baqi (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The information is correct and backed by credible references. All names were removed, as requested. And there are many wiki pages that have a legal section and many times there are cases cited that are ongoing without a final decision in the case yet. So all of your reasons to pull down the info run counter to the rules of wiki and community. If you pull it down again, I will escalate to wiki administrators

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

March 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Vineyard Vines. 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 their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges.

''If you continue to edit war over this content, you will almost certainly be blocked from editing. Use the talk page to propose changes and find consensus rather than talk about suppression/revisionists.'' &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

If you continue to block factual content that is appropriately sourced and referenced then u will undoubtedly be blocked from editing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abercrombie_%26_Fitch There are thousands of like examples. Debate, discuss vs take down. Be a wiki not a factual data suppression

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The content is factual, referenced from multiple accredited sources, and in line with both wiki guidelines and many other comparable pages on wiki. If this is in violation then literally thousands of other company pages are as well. Please suggest how the content should be modified, let’s start there, as the users taking down the content have offered no recourse other than taking the factual public data down. This seems all very un wiki like!

Edit-warring on Vineyard Vines
Please don't continue to push edits that have been reverted by multiple editors. Instead, discuss the edits on the article talk page and work towards a consensus. If you've read what people are saying in edit-summaries, on the talk page, at the NPOV noticeboard discussion and at the ANI discussion, nobody is saying what you're adding is false. Nobody. What's being said is that the material is WP:UNDUE and contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Most lawsuits aren't mentioned unless they have significant coverage and even then generally only when they've been decided. This is especially true when individuals are specifically named - WP:BLPCRIME. What you've added does not appear to meet that criteria. Please continue to discuss on the article talk page.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This is untrue, it’s factual public data readily available, referenced on multiple accredited sources including government sites and Bloomberg. Offer an alternative, give suggested changes, begin a dialogue vs taking the content down and suppressing the info. This is all very un-wiki like. I welcome and administration review. This content is also in line with hundreds of like pages. I have provided numerous examples.


 * There are substantial differences that you are deliberately ignoring. There are existing discussions that you are deliberately ignoring.  There are comments with specific Wikipedia policies that you are deliberately ignoring.  There is un-wiki like behavior here, it's from the person who continues to force material into articles despite objections, who ignores comments made by others and repeats the same thing over and over and over.  That's the problem.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Vineyard Vines. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

The information being suppressed is factual public data readily available, referenced on multiple accredited sources including government sites and Bloomberg. Offer an alternative, give suggested changes, begin a dialogue vs taking the content down and suppressing the info. This is all very un-wiki like. I welcome and administration review. This content is also in line with hundreds of like pages. I have provided numerous examples.

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Vineyard Vines for persistent edit warring to restore disputed content. The article talk page is still available to you to discuss the inclusion of the content. Further disregard of our policies and guidelines that have been provided to you in multiple venues, including two noticeboard discussions, may ultimately result in a site-wide block. 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:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your account has been used solely to push a specific agenda contrary to WP:SOAP. I'm assuming that may be why no reviewing admin has accepted your appeal to date.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, you seem to have a single purpose here, and a single agenda. If you were unblocked, what would you do? Would you continue on in the Vineyard Vines article or find some other topic? You may revise your appeal above accordingly; it really needs to say what you intend to do if you are unblocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I intend to periodically post factual referenced material in line with wiki guidelines. WP:Admin