This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
The story is as follows: I revert a change that seems VERY against guidelines from this IP. Then, the IP reverts me. Then someone else (@LizardJr8) reverts him. Then THEY get reverted, with the IP stating "The information shared as short description is pure trashtalk about the company, with references to sensationalism journals. Writters just want to affect the company's public image" Then, they make a second edit stating the same thing. Then @Zekerocks11 reverts him, IP reverts back, and Zeke reverts back. Then the IP reverts AGAIN.
I have already had a discussion with this user in my talk page and warned them for this. If you have anything else you would like to say to this user, feel free. I understand the concern that they brought up, and I am currently reviewing the article now. I also have found some poor machine translation errors in the process, that I have fixed.
For the record, the following reverts has happened:
The Shaming Man has reverted 1 edit
LizardJr8 has reverted 1 edit
I have reverted 2 edits
If anybody has any questions or concerns, please feel free to comment them down below or on my talk page. Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. Really thought I reverted more, but I guess not. I'm gonna keep an eye on this page for a month. The Shamming Man has appeared. Sham me / Where I've shammed 02:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted for removal without description but subsequent changes are content related. I am not WP:CIR on the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I currently see that user's intent as somewhat valid, so what I am currently doing is the following:
I am editing off the last page that the IP address has edited, and I am fixing grammar and translation errors.
While I agree with what they said in my talk page, what I am doing is mentioning the current legal trouble in the lead in very briefly, and I am adding a seperate section for "Controversies and Legal Trouble" in the article. If you have any suggests or objections, feel free to let me know. Zekerocks11 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the edit warring by the IP has to stop. But, the IP has a point. The material was distinctly in violation of WP:UNDUE. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update, I have updated the article as I see fit at this point. Once again, if you have any objections or suggestions, please feel free to let me know. At this point, I have talked to the user in question, I viewed their initial intent as good, and the revert rule simply being a lack of misunderstanding in guidelines, as they stated they never edited before this point. If anything comes up, make sure you warn before reporting, as again, I view intent as good and I believe this user (at this moment) has no ill intent. I would also prefer that I be notified in the event that something comes up. I appreciate your cooperation, and if you view things any differently than mine, then that is completely your call. All the best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
