Granted it was a while ago and things may have changed, trying to do a simple typo correction lead to what I described. I really don't have time to dig through their documentation just to do something as minor as fixing spelling. It was obvious the editor took offense to it. So thats that from me, sorry for helping I guess.
Also run into problems where pages on companies are wrong and edits are prevented even though the information is outright inaccurate. Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.
The fact that it was a "simple typo" makes me sure there was more to it than that because no one would revert that if it were so. It's likely that it was something you saw as a typo such as the spelling of colour vs color. [0]
> Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.
Depends what you're trying to cite. Most small pieces information can be cited just fine to primary sources, though secondary sources are preferred. [1] However, more controversial statements or claims of notability require a reliable independent source, [2] or else any company could claim "we're the best" on their page and include it on Wikipedia.
Anyway in both these cases, you fall into the trap I listed before, where you're soooooooo certain that you're in the right and the stupid encyclopedia and its editors are power hungry. Have you ever considered maybe there's more reasoning to it then? Again, I almost guarantee there were reasons given in both cases to which you didn't give the least attention. You wouldn't go making a pull request to an open source project full of code that goes against their style guide, introduces a regression, and is suboptimal and then get righteous that it wasn't accepted without question would you?
Also run into problems where pages on companies are wrong and edits are prevented even though the information is outright inaccurate. Apparently having the info on the company website isn't cite-able? Seems stupid to me.