User talk:V.jonesy

December 2023

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that in this edit to OGUsers, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 23:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, they are using blatant slander and false information to vandalize the page such as adding a "founder" which is not confirmed and a link to court documents which are also not confirmed. As well as adding "ogusers.gg" as the official website when again that is not confirmed or valid. V.jonesy (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, replying to you again. Please refer to the references they used to see it has no mention of OGUsers or it's founders identity. They are only adding this to slander a random persons name for "doxxing" purposes. There are no mentions of the real identity of the OGUsers founder anywhere online. V.jonesy (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to OGUsers, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Online) 00:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at OGUsers. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: OGUsers was changed by V.jonesy (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.886332 on 2023-12-02T02:06:37+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

V.jonesy - Please stop re-instating your edit to OGUsers where you remove content from the page. You need to discuss your changes on the article's talk page (located here), and explain exactly why you believe the content to be "blatant slander and false information to vandalize the page" (as you stated above). In looking at the content, I don't see any text that suggests that the information is such. Continuing to revert the page back to your preferred version will cause you to be blocked for edit warring. Speaking of edit warring...

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am using the talk page on here.

Please refer to the references they used to see it has no mention of OGUsers or it's founders identity. They are only adding this to slander a random persons name for "doxxing" purposes. There are no mentions of the real identity of the OGUsers founder anywhere online. V.jonesy (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through them. I see what you're trying to say regarding implied neutrality issues, since the references refer to a court case and a news article regarding "Instagram trading". However, the content that simply lists the website's founders is not blatant slander and false information. The information appears to be true, and the references (if anything) support this. Instead of removing the content altogether, why not just replace the references used with a more neutral one? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The information is true"

Because the information is not true. What exactly makes the information true using that persons name as the founder? It's like me making it say "Elon Musk" founded it and adding references that have nothing to do with what the Wikipedia page is about. V.jonesy (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then if the information is not true, do you have a reference that supports what you're saying? Do you have a reliable source that states who the website's founders really are? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source that states who the website's founders really are?

Exactly my point. V.jonesy (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s on you to find sources to prove your point. Yoshi24517 (mobile) (talk) (Online) 03:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's also on them to find sources to prove theirs? Do you not see my point.

If I added "Elon Musk" as the founder and linked an article relating to Elon Musk it would be the same as they did. I am telling you the information is not true. Neither they, nor I have proof to back that up. But in my case I know what they are doing and I am trying to explain it, in theirs they're just trying to vandalize to be funny. V.jonesy (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in these communities' since the beginning and I am telling you that what they put as the founder is blatant lies to slander people and think it's funny. Why defend it? How is them adding that any more value than me removing it. At least I can have a discussion about it. V.jonesy (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the last removed edit, which was supported by a court transcript, and—especially through the lens of WP:BLP—I do not feel it supports the claim that the named individual(s) are connected to the website in question. Not only is the site not named in the document, but WP:BLPPRIMARY specifically identifies court records as a class of document not to be used. —C.Fred (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the court transcript? No where in there does it mention or have to do with "OGUsers" or "OGU.

You could link any random court document linked to any individual then claim it supports their supposed "Founder" status? V.jonesy (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at OGUsers. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. BusterD (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

V.jonesy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not edit warring, they are edit warring with me. I am providing proper edits and they refuse to quit making new accounts and undo them to promote a website unrelated to the wiki in question. You can check the talk page of that wiki and see we have discussed this. V.jonesy (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's a good thing I wasn't consuming any beverage when I read the first line of your request. While I admit that there are some people who, in real life, could start a fight with an empty room, and some of them do edit Wikipedia, like sex it always takes two to edit war. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

V.jonesy (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]