User talk:Truecrypt-end

May 2014

Hello, I'm Intgr. Your recent edit to the page TrueCrypt appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- intgr [talk] 19:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TrueCrypt's Discontinued Development

Hello, I suspect that the discontinued development of TrueCrypt may be a hoax or a result of a hack of their website. Please discuss on the talk page: Talk:TrueCrypt#RE:_TrueCrypt.27s_.22Discontinued_Development.22. I have undone your edit regarding the discontinued state of TrueCrypt. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at TrueCrypt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.. Please use the talk page as a discussion before making broad statements. We need more sources. —f3ndot ^{(TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP)} 19:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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. 5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I brought a very important information here. It was removed even though it was correct. Why am I banned? Truecrypt-end (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not banned, you are blocked - and from what I see, for at least 2 reasons. First, your username violates our username policy as it clearly represents a company. Second, your edits have been nothing but promotion and spam. There's a third reason: you agreed when you signed up to this private website to not edit articles where you have conflict of interest - but that's minor considering the first two. Please ensure you read WP:GAB and everything linked from WP:5P prior to further requests for unblock the panda ₯’ 00:03, 3 July 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My user name does not represent a company (even if it did, it could not be a reason to ban anyone). My post was neither spam nor promotion -- you just present lies and abuse administrator privileges. I brought a very important information which was removed by several vandals. Unblock my account. Truecrypt-end (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not addressed the other unblock requests. Chillum 19:25, 17 July 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

My post was neither spam nor promotion. I brought a very important information which was removed by several vandals. Truecrypt-end (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am using IAR to decline this because a) 1 open request at a time, b) this is just a condensed version of the request before, and c) no admin has done it in four days. Any admin should feel free to undo it and contact/block me, if this is a real problem. Origamite^{is out right now} 00:33, 13 July 2014 (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.

Please unban this user

I was the first person to revert Truecrypt-end's edit. At first I didn't believe what the edit said and didn't even bother to verify the provided reference (my mistake, sorry!). While the edit didn't follow Wikipedia's style, that's a minor issue. It's clear to me that the user had good intentions. The user didn't make any more edits after the second notice by f3ndot.

Given that, the ban given 2 days later was not necessary and goes against WP:AGF, WP:BITE. The reason "advertising or promotion" is also not applicable. Please unban this user. I think @5 albert square: should be more careful with her banhammer in the future. -- intgr [talk] 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not banned, they're merely blocked. Please learn the difference before further embarrassing yourself the panda ₯’ 00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am embarrassed, yes. Not because I mixed up two words that are interchangeable in Internet lingo, but that we have such condescending admins on Wikipedia. -- intgr [talk] 07:52, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there's little subjective difference. As a passing admin I've got to say I can see no promotion, spamming, or other kinds of undue edits meriting a block. This user was updating the article based on current 'best' information. Although the user should get their name changed, there seems little to justify a behavioural block - certainly not as a spam/advertising account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The name does need changing, and it worries me slightly that the user made an absolute demand, "Unblock my account," and said that the admins had lied in what looks to be a misunderstanding. Origamite^{is out right now} 02:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamian (talk • contribs) [reply]
Do not open a second request. I don't want to WP:IAR, but someone will close one shortly. Origamite^{is out right now} 19:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamian (talk • contribs) [reply]