Atolson1

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Citadel Securities 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. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How can I use the talk page to discuss edits when the company that is the subject of the page has a literal staff of people who are tasked with using multiple accounts to revert any edit I make? Atolson1 (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Start with the talk page for the policy-based reasons for the change. If they flood the discussion, proceed to the conflict of interest noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

C.Fred's advice is solid. I'd also like to highlight the dispute resolution link from his longer message above.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:48, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks fam,

Once I have posted my proposed revision/addition to the article, what should I do as 'next steps' for making the changes? For instance, is there a 1 day waiting period for my proposed changes before I should go ahead and modify the article?

For reference, thus far92.40.192.0/23 I have edited / reverted the changes on this specific article probably 4 or 5 times today. Then, per your suggestion above (I'm new here but am passionate about quality journalism) I made a proposed topic addition in the talk section. I also learned how to use the fancy referencing tool.

Again, thanks for your help. I look forward to helping create value for the wikipedia community <3 Atolson1 (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate you want to create value, but please read about our policies regarding reliable sources and primary sources before continuing to edit the article. Galobtter (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Instead of making a vague comment, why dont you just directly tell me which source you are taking an issue with?

Surely, you cant be complaining about the source documents that I included referencing SEC.gov? Atolson1 (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Your changes at Citadel Securities have been reverted by more than one editor. Edit warring is strictly prohibited, even if done slowly. You will be blocked if anything like those changes is repeated without a clear consensus on the article talk page. See dispute resolution. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Citadel Securities has a staff of employees that are literally disclosed on Wikipedia due to their CLEAR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

These same employees are using multiple accounts to undo my factually accurate edited information.

These emoployees are maliciously deleting the factually accurate information because their employer wants them to, and they dont want their employer to be related to the MANY FACTUALLY ACCURATE INSTANCES WHERE CITADEL SECURITIES was charged, fined, and accused of using illegal manipulative tactics to manipulate the market.

There is no reason a staff of the company should have any more say over the content of the encyclopedia entry ragarding their business. It would be far less bias to allow people who are not being paid by Citadel Securities to help create the page. Obviously. Atolson1 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked Alecmvqb (talk · contribs). The Atolson1 (talk · contribs) account has 29 edits and was created on 1 December 2023. As a new user, you should be asking questions rather than lecturing established editors. Please be aware that contributors here see people righting great wrongs every day. That doesn't work. Ask questions and move slowly. An article is not a place to list every bad thing that has happened—imagine how Wikipedia would look if anyone with a grievance could edit articles to add cherry-picked problems. You have noticed that Cduffymul (talk · contribs) states they have been paid by Citadel LLC. That does not give you the right to revert everyeone. See WP:AGF. Johnuniq (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours for sockpuppettry

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)