User talk:Elite spark

Welcome!

Hello, Elite spark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as KPassC, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! SL93 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KPassC

The article KPassC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable software. Fails WP:N.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=ig&rlz=&q=kpassc+credential+manager

20,000+ references within Google. It is an equal competitor to others within wikipedia whether it is liked or nor.

Conflict-of-interest advertising

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is legitimate, research the topic before commenting. Feel free to google KPassC, you will see that it is equal to the other niche articles which exist on Wikipedia such as Keepass, LastPass etc. Feel free to assist me adding an image: http://www.kpassc.pw/screenshots/

Nomination of KPassC for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article KPassC is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPassC until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--

There needs to be a discussion on wikipedia into how extensively others can negatively influence the contributions of others they personally deem incorrect (without evidence) and favouritism which I think is affecting wikipedia all over. My concerns are not new, everything I have added is within context, reasonable and referenced.

You forgot the notability part of it. SL93 (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Practical official cross-platform clients 2. Uniform Polymorphic Credentials, URL bookmarking and Notes all in one 3. Optional Cloud facility with further layers of encryption

Perhaps we need to also discuss the notability of KeePass and LastPass and many of the others. To remove KPassC, it seems only reasonable to also remove the others.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a few million articles so it is impossible to patrol every article for notability concerns. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed but fair play emitting, KeePass and LastPass are merely two amongst the millions we ought to consider for deletion if we are to be efficient.

July 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with KPassC. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at KPassC, you may be blocked from editing. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages as you did with this edit to KPassC. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE:

Use the articles discussion page to JUSTIFY the issue with the article instead of fishing for a problem. Completely unacceptable behaviour.

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

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. 155blue (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact administrators by submitting appeals via the unblock ticket request system. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elite spark, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

155blue (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]