Theporkypaladin

April 2024

Hello, I'm CNMall41. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ryze Trampoline Parks seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I undid the changes. With due respect, I quoted all reputable sources for my edits. Why would you think its not neutral? Its pointing out that this place has injuries. In the parent company (Sky Zone) page, there is already a section on injuries and lawsuits. I am only adding to it. I don't see what's not objective about it. In fact, why does anyone want to hide the fact that this place has recent injuries and not just in US but in UK and Hong Kong as well. Please be objective and neutral yourself? Theporkypaladin (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You're a single-purpose account with a strong opinion. People like that arent well-thought-of on Wikipedia. If you keep editing like this, you may be blocked. Graham87 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is adding to the facts about injuries, with references to published media sources (and reputable ones too), considered strong opinion? If you look at the number of incidents this company has, I would argue the people who insist that the current write-up represent a full picture is the one that has a strong biased opinion, as it doesn't represent a complete picture and definitely not full facts. To be fact, why don't you edit factually and I can do the same? If I am blocked for speaking the truth then so be it. Theporkypaladin (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

One more thing, I saw you undid my changes, and claimed the sources are not reputable. The Mirror while a tabloid in the UK, is still a paper that a lot of people know and read. South China Morning Post is the largest English newspapers in Hong Kong, and The Standard is the second largest. Finally TVB is Hong Kong's largest TV station. Why would you say these are not reputable sources? Theporkypaladin (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sky Zone. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. CNMall41 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources here. We're much more interested in analysis than individual incidents. If you think you're "speaking the truth", you have an extreme attitude problem. Graham87 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

South China Morning Post and The Standard are reputable publications in Hong Kong, and not tabloids. The same incident quoted in The Mirror can be found in other media sources as well, I just picked the most convenient. If you think there is a problem with the writing, you are welcome to edit it factually. Throwing things like "You're a single-purpose account with a strong opinion. People like that arent well-thought-of on Wikipedia. If you keep editing like this, you may be blocked" sound like a judgement on me and a threat, I invite you to edit my writing rather than remove it wholesale, isn't that the most constructive? What is there to hide when I am just adding on to recent incidents happening at this company. What do you mean by "We're much more interested in analysis than individual incidents" Wikipedia is a factual source not meant for you to exert your subjective analysis or opinion. Theporkypaladin (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You clearly don't get it. Wikipedia relies on analysis from other people and does not have huge lists of things, when possible. Graham87 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)