User talk:Greedygrim1011

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Greedygrim1011, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you are enjoying editing and want to do lots more. Some useful pages to visit are:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun game-like tour to help get you oriented within Wikipedia)

You can sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you need any help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. We're so glad you're here! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC).

Vandalism warning[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Devolver Digital. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Lordtobi (✉) 11:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Devolver Digital, you may be blocked from editing. Lordtobi (✉) 19:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Devolver Digital. Lordtobi (✉) 14:04, 23 June 2015 (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).

Greedygrim1011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find it ironic that as one of the guys who actually works for Devolver Digital, I cannot make the amends without you correcting them. First up, we have 7 staff. Not 8 or 9. Kate and Andie are "work for hire". I got bored correcting this, so put 99. Next up, the CEO thing came from a joke. We, at Devolver don't have job titles. Hence why in interviews, when we are asked, we say that. The CEO came from a linked in post (again a joke) this has now morphed to the wikki and has now become a sort of internet fact as media reference wikki for this info. Not me. I have no job title. FACT. Next up, we don't have a slogan. You are referencing an "ironic" tag line from a playstation video we ran at e3. So, you want it to be correct. 7 Staff, not a CEO regardless and we dont have a tag. Greedygrim1011 (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 25 June 2015 (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.

Your edits on Devolver Digital[edit]

Hello Greedygrim1011,

me and other Wikipedia users have noticed your high amount of vandalizing edits. In question is Devolver Digital, furhtermore it's Infobox.

You often keep removing Graeme Struthers, their CEO. You have stated, that you are him yourself, but you do not seem to recognize that you are considered Devolver's CEO in terms of Code enforcement officer, and not Chief executive officer. A popular source where this can be sourced from is e.g. The Complex article about Devolver, where it says; quote: "That's Graeme Struthers, Devolver's CEO: Code Enforcement Officer".

Second point is the changing of the amount of employees, where you put in random numbers which were: 99, 1.9, 7. Where there are (according to research) 9 employees total (excluding interns): Mike Wilson, Harry A. Miller IV and Rick Stults (the founders), Graeme Strutheres (you) and Andrew Parsons (the London branch), Fork Parker (the fictional CFO), Kate Ludlow (the "Special Ops"), Andie Grace (Devolver Digital Films) and Nigel Lowire.

Third is the changing of the slogan. Everytime you changed it, it resulted in "At least we tried", obviously joking about the company. Though, the correct slogan was alredy not very serious as "We Publish Video Games(TM)" (as seen in multiple Devolver-related videos. The last official video that featured as slogan, and with that is the most recent, was the Devolver-PlayStation-E3 announcement for 2014, which is found here.

At last, I am pointing out that you simply delete content not necessary to be delted.

After having mentioned the three points above, you did not take into consideration, that your edits are often malformed which breaks the Infobox or other components in the article. Stating of which, I have, again, undone your edits and am forced to give you another warning on your page. Therefore, I would like you to stop editing things as a joke, rather take Wikipedia seriously and, if is the high need of editing something you do not know about, take it as a question onto Devolver's talk page.

Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 13:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

as I can see, you now have explained your changes through your unblock reason. Though it does not work out for you to get unblocked, you will be automaticly unblocked after 36h as it is temporary. For you now having explained your reasons I safely edited the article with correct markup and explanation. The reason you were banned is that you only changed things and either left no comment, something not explaining why you made your edits or anything unfitting like "getting bored with this". I gave you multiple warnings and wrote the long message you see above, but you just did not care about it, rather making the same edit over and over again. If you had explained why you changed what, I could have lifted the warnings and left you doing what you did, but this way, the warnings and edits were noticed by [[[User:KrakatoaKatie|KrakatoaKatie]] and you got a temporary block, which would have not been necessary.

Lordtobi (✉) 11:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Krakatoa Katie 22:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Greedygrim1011. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. IceWelder [✉] 17:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I get that. My edits are to input factual information. Number of employees. Founders. Expansion.

I see no conflict in such accuracy.

Greedygrim1011 (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did add information that noone could possibly verify. If you think something needs updating, please follow COI protocol and post an edit request on the article's talk page, providing the reliable sources that support your change. Here is the guideline again: WP:COI. IceWelder [✉] 18:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So in effect a private company cannot correct errors? If I tweet this from my companies account, that makes it work? Greedygrim1011 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter would work in some scenarios, but is a primary source that we cannot just litter the article with. It would be better if you found reliable, secondary sources for your claims (WP:VG/RS and WP:VG/SE can help with that) and then add these to an edit request. IceWelder [✉] 18:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok final wuestion Greedygrim1011 (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops hit the button too soon.

For context: I am attempting to have factual information. For example, Devolver China was shut down. Upsetting for my three team members who work for me in China.

The only source as to how many staff we have is Devolver, same for Our Devolver team in China. This information is not something we send out to media outlets. It has previously been remarked upon in conversations about our company.

The only way I can see this happening is via us having an about us section on our website and then pointing at that. Greedygrim1011 (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If something like this is never publicised, you cannot expect it to pop up on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia cannot be used to publish new information. An about/history page on the company website would do the trick if it is not overused (i.e. only used to "fill the gaps" between what we can infer from secondary sources). If the book by Third Editions contains such information, I can add it from there; I bought it to expand the article with it but haven't had the time to read it yet. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]