User talk:Wikicontributor318

Sockpuppet investigation
Mako001 (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone hasn't been making it clear or something, but you were not blocked due to "correcting a fact", you were blocked for sockpuppetry and continuing to make COI edits after being warned (you were warned as UserAlphamotorcorporation), goodbye, and please don't come back, since you are clearly not here to build an encyclopaedia. Mako001 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Let if be known a fact that Username "JWB" and "The Alternate Maco" are blocking edits from their article on Alpha Motor Corporation which falsely states that the company was established as a successor to another entity. They reference a slanderous piece written about the company which states that "Alpha Motor Corporation is unrelated to any other entity." It seems they have not read the article which they reference in its entirety before posting this article on Wikipedia. JWB and The Alternate Maco continue to block the article from being edited.

November 2021
Your recent editing history at Alpha Motor Corporation 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Since you are an obvious Wp:SOCK of User:Alphamotorcorporation You are now up to two reverts, dont keep pushing your COI edits. Mako001 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well done, your persistence has paid off! Here is an award for it.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mako001 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Let if be known a fact that Username "JWB" and "The Alternate Maco" are blocking edits from their article on Alpha Motor Corporation which falsely states that the company was established as a successor to another entity. They reference a slanderous piece written about the company which states that "Alpha Motor Corporation is unrelated to any other entity." It seems they have not read the article which they reference in its entirety before posting this article on Wikipedia. JWB and The Alternate Maco continue to block the article from being edited.

I would like to sincerely recommend that you read this page. It will help you greatly and may even allow you to find a way of resolving this issue to your satisfaction. Mako001 (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Response to your email
I have received your email asking me to discuss issues relating to your editing of the article Alpha Motor Corporation. It us fundamental to the way that Wikipedia works that discussions should normally be visible to all editors, and discussion via email should be used only under very limited circumstances, the commonest being when an editor is blocked from editing their own talk page and when confidential information is involved, so that it can't be posted on a publicly visible web page. The former of those certainly doesn't apply in this case, and you have given no indication that the second does, so I suggest that anything you have to say about this should be said here. JBW (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

wp:ADFAQ%23CONDUCT I have seen JBW being involved in ADMIN ABUSE. Along with several others, JBW states that the article written about Alpha Motor Corporation, specifically calling it a "successor" is incorrect yet have not done anything to correct it. This is JBW's admission that the wording on the article which JBW blocked from being corrected should now be corrected after JBW has been reported for this fact. JBW has blocked me from making this very edit, and this is clear evidence of admin abuse, which means JBW is choosing when and how the article on Alpha Motor Corporation should and can be controlled. He is blocking editing (for indefinite period?) and protecting the document (until February 2022?) for something he calls "minor." This is clearly ADMIN ABUSE. JBW also makes judgement about what is and what is not Wikipedia rules in matters concerning his own conduct. How is it possible for JBW to judge their own conduct on matters where they are called out for ADMIN ABUSE and carry on to have the control ability to dismiss such claim? Remove block and page protection requested.
 * There is no abuse here outside of your obvious misuse of multiple accounts. You have no inherent right to edit here and are expected to follow our policies and guidelines. You did not, and were blocked accordingly. Any further aspersions directed at the blocking admin will result in your talk page access being removed.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the article - "Admin Abuse of Alpha Motor Corporation Page" - The article itself is gossip with the admin JBW and creator of the page WADDLESJP13 saying all the claims they are making is based on "likelihood," and not facts. Further gossip is stated in the reply. This is why Wikipedia is LOSING CREDIBILITY because articles are written as GOSSIP pieces and not FACTS.

Admin Admitting Article Is Incorrect Yet No Change is Made
Read the article - "Admin Abuse of Alpha Motor Corporation Page" - The article itself begins with a statement of gossip "The company was established as a successor to the short-lived EV company Neuron Corporation." Cited reference has no mention of such statement.

See - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Admin_Abuse_of_Alpha_Motor_Corporation_Page

Waggers, Hobit, JBW all agree that this statement is incorrect saying (1) "the source doesn't support the relationship indicated," (2) "the text in the WP article actually calls Alpha a "successor" to Neuron, a word that isn't used in the source" (3) "the word could be interpreted as implying a legal connection as a continuation of the same business, which probably is not the case. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for someone to substitute an alternative form of wording."

With the above stated fact, JBW has protected the page preventing others from making edits which is contradictory to his request of "it would probably be a good idea for someone to substitute an alternative form of wording." Wikipedia is a platform where editing is open yet in this case, editing is clearly controlled by JBW since he has blocked anyone from making edits. Wikicontributor318 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Your edits continue to malign others in posts that have nothing to do with your block for abuse of multiple accounts. Wikipedia editors are discussing the content and the article will be updated/changed according to consensus, in accordance with our policies and guidelines.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 20:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)