Misplaced Pages

Nomination of Flying Colors (software) for deletion

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Flying Colors (software) 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 template from the top of the article.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment at AfD discussion

In regard to your recent edit on Apple, Inc.

Regarding this edit on Apple, Inc: No matter how much you think you might know about computers or the computer business, you can never be a source on Misplaced Pages. That would violate WP:OR. Have a nice day. 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Apple Inc.

You are free to add criticism, but not your own. The article is not your soapbox and even a critical section should be written from a neutral point of view.

Regards, O.Koslowski (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Apple Inc., you may be blocked from editing. Krenair 19:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's no "may" about it. If I see you restore that section to the Apple, Inc. article again, you will be blocked from editing, because I will do it. Don't simply keep reincluding material over and over until other editors give up: go to the article's talk page and discuss the issue in order to find wording that will be acceptable.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking?

Interlude65 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What do you mean, "probably compromised"? Why did you change my block settings to '''ENDLESS''', anyway?? Also, I apologize for those disruptive edits I made. I promise to never make a bad contribution ever again, and I actually won't. I hope all of you guys forgive me. Also, I read the policies that Jasper Deng linked. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What do you mean, "probably compromised"? Why did you change my block settings to '''ENDLESS''', anyway?? Also, I apologize for those disruptive edits I made. I promise to never make a bad contribution ever again, and I actually won't. I hope all of you guys forgive me. Also, I read the policies that Jasper Deng linked. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What do you mean, "probably compromised"? Why did you change my block settings to '''ENDLESS''', anyway?? Also, I apologize for those disruptive edits I made. I promise to never make a bad contribution ever again, and I actually won't. I hope all of you guys forgive me. Also, I read the policies that Jasper Deng linked. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

"Probably compromised" = someone else has breached into your account, or that we believe that you have. This is based on the fact that your disruption increased suddenly very recently. But even if your account is not compromised you have a lot to explain - you'd have to go read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, especially.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• OK, NOBODY has breached into my account, just myself, breaching into my own account. After seeing all of that vandalism on 72Dino's page, that sort of altered my Wikipedian-ness, and that's where those disruptive edits started. But I PROMISE to not do that anymore. So, this has all been a big misunderstanding. Interlude 65 19:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The ability to keep cool and civil, and to not WP:SHOUT is important here. Compromised or not, you're not going to be unblocked if you can't convince us that you can remain cool even if you see the most atrocious vandalism on someone else's userpage. I linked those policies for a reason, so to convince a reviewing administrator you must explicitly say that you understand and agree to those policies and that you will keep your call on this wiki at all times.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read the policies listed and I agree and I will keep my call on this wiki at all times. Even if I see the most atrocious vandalism ever made, I will not change my Wikipedian ways and will promise to always make good contributions. Interlude 65 23:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)