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
edit
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
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
March 2021
edit
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. — 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
edit There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — 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
editPlease 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
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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)
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.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
OdinNeith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The info included in the vineyard vines summary page is publicly verified and factual with reliable sources. Absolutely no good reason for being blocked aside from targeted suppression originated by those who are part of the marketing arm of the corporation. Look into it!
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits. You'll need to address that, and only that, in any future unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 23:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
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.
OdinNeith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edit warring is equally an issue for those that removed the original legal factual information. For this reason there should not be a block on either side. Good reason should be made through healthy debate to have the info included or excluded. If you look at the string the reason provided to remove the referenced and factual info was from a representative in the Vineyard Vines marketing dept. clearly a conflict of interest at play here, which flies in the face of why wiki exists. Very disappointing.
Below is the referenced exchange: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vineyard_Vines&action=edit§ion=8
Helpful sources and question re: legal issues[edit source] Thanks again to User:Crystallizedcarbon for assisting with the above request. I wanted to share a couple helpful sources with you and other editors. Boston magazine confirms the company is privately owned, if a citation is helpful for "Private" in the infobox. This article also confirms that Vineyard Vines surpassed the $1 million mark in sales within three years and had 100 stores by 2017. The article currently mentions 100+ stores, but perhaps the 2017 "timestamp" would be helpful? Additionally, here's a helpful source about analytics, published by Harvard Business Review. Perhaps this is helpful as a source or external link? Finally, I want to ask, Crystallizedcarbon, would you be opposed to me posting on an admin noticeboard regarding the legal issues content? I appreciate your prior work to remove this problematic content, and understand you may be willing to remove the text again in March, but I'm hoping some additional eyes here will mean removal sooner than later. Thanks again for feedback and your continued help. Nicole at Vineyard Vines (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC) No problem @Nicole at Vineyard Vines: Please feel free to do so. You should be cautious though, since you have a declared COI that may not help the case for removal. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: Is this the section where we should debate the removal of the public factual referenced Company relevant info in question? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 16:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC) If I do not hear back I will revert the fact based, relevant, cited articles and information about this topic. It is difficult to not view this as a form of censorship, which is why I now take issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 16:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) You could continue to just speculate about the motives of other editors, cry censorship, and edit war to force your preferred version, but that will not result in the outcome you want and will more than likely result in your account being blocked. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to follow which make the project possible at all, and it's based on good faith collaboration to find consensus. Better would be for you to present arguments, grounded in citations to reliable sources, to include the material, taking into account the objections of others. Whereas you seem to only be on Wikipedia for this article, Crystallizedcarbon has tens of thousands of edits to many, many articles. If anyone is editing this article for the wrong reasons, I would not suspect it's them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC) @OdinNeith: Yes, this would be a good place to discuss your proposed changes. Our objective is to create encyclopedic articles about notable subjects. Not all verifiable events about a subject are suitable for inclusion in its encyclopedic article. Adding, for example, all the suits filed against each company (regardless of the result or amount of in-depth coverage) would lead to over-detailed articles that would look like a diary. The lasting notability of the event should be taken into account to decide if it merits inclusion. In my opinion, the WP:ROUTINE coverage for the price suit does not give any indication of notability, the sources for the discrimination suit are better, but are only local ones. Is there coverage by any nationwide newssource? has anything being published since? Given the posible penal implications, If there is no better coverage, I would wait for the eventual publication of a guilty verdict before inclusion. Please explain why you think this particular suits merit inclusion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Crystallizedcarbon: We should have an admin step in. Appears like clear suppression of factual information. Either provide proof that the host of references including articles, newspaper publications, legal documents and public proceedings are incorrect. Or cease the edit war and censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 18 March 2021 (UTC) See WP:SUSPECT, we should not include accusations of crime in a wp:blp. These are only allegations, and we lose nothing by waiting for an outcome. Also wp:undue might come into it, one line "And is currently subject to a number of lawsuits" might be OKish (but would have to be removed if they win, which is kind of the point, if they win we have to remove all of this anyway). This is the problem, win or lose this would need to be reworked, so we wait until we can write an encyclopedic entry on the legal issues. Also there may be wp:pov issues, why was this also not added https://www.distractify.com/p/vineyard-vines-lawsuit-real-housewives, its a legal dispute involving them, one who's outcome we know? It needs work.Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC) Saw this posted on WP:ANI and my immediate thoughts match Slatersteven. Filed lawsuits that don't draw significant coverage in major sources shouldn't be mentioned, and both of these suits seem to fall in that category. The class action suit sources in particular are scraping the barrel - one looks more like a press release than anything else. I'm also curious about the connection between OdinNeith and these lawsuits. There's a strong feel of WP:COI here that's not being declared. Ravensfire (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC) We definitely need to elevate to a proper admin. 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OdinNeith (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC) OdinNeith, substantial difference between Abercrombie & Fitch and what you're trying to add. It's been pointed out previously - those are settled cases. You're adding ones that aren't and in the class action case, your sources are utter junk - press releases basically. Not acceptable. Ravensfire (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Controversies - equivalent wiki content & pages in the same industry... Good point though, change legal issues to controversies to be consistent. Good point!
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
- the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
- the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
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.
OdinNeith (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that I was blocked due to edit warring and not the content posted which was factual with proper citations. My edit warring will not be repeated, instead I will follow the guidelines for debated content.
Decline reason:
You have made no response to the queries below in almost four weeks, nor is there any evidence anywhere that you are likely to do any kind of editing other than that which led to the block. It therefore doesn't seem likely that letting you return to editing the article in question would lead to any benefit to the encyclopaedia. JBW (talk) 10:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
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.
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 Ponyobons 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