User talk:Flyboi9

November 2009
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. - Sinneed  19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please give a read to wp:talk page guidelines, wp:SOAP, and wp:conflict of interest. Do not discuss other editors, their motivations. Focus entirely on the content of the article. Your post there at talk:Family Foundation School is not appropriate.- Sinneed  19:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ON my talk page, you wrote: Sineed, your not being very helpful on the talk:family foundation school site. Everyone is focusing on the content. We are trying to be neutral and understanding to both sides, but you seem to not be focusing on the content that is there including the abuse allegations. If a facility has such an uprising of abusive conditions being alleged by over fifty alumni, that needs to be part of the content. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise for a school like FFS, wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA. By omitting content, like you are doing, you are clearly showing bias and not allowing valid content to be included and you are doing a dis-service to wikipedia readers. Please stop doing that [index.php?title=User:Flyboi9&action=edit&redlink=1 Flyboi9] (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your missive contains a number of errors and stated or implied falsehoods. You should review and understand how you are failing to follow the guidelines I have provided for your, then follow them. If you continue down this path, you will eventually be unable to edit.- Sinneed


 * Also, wp:assume good faith. Simply because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are "showing bias".  It means they disagree with you.-  Sinneed  21:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

December 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sinneed. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please note, language such as "FFS" is not tolerated against other editors. I think Sineed is being rather lenient against you. I will not be.'' Sikh- History 17:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The term "FFS" stands for "Family Foundation School" which is the article that we are commenting on. It has no derogatory or other attacking meaning.  Sorry for confusion.  I will take a look at the welcome page as you suggested. Flyboi9 (talk) 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case my apologies. Feel free to remove the warning. Regards--Sikh- History 08:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I never noticed the FFS possible bad-language acronym. Thank you SH, and I am sorry the 2nd possible meaning misled you.  Thank you for responding courteously to SH, Flyboi9, and sorry for the misunderstanding. -  Sinneed  23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

RSNB posting
I expanded the posting, please check to be sure I did not mislead there. :)- Sinneed  22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I encourage you to stop now.
Disrupting the article talk page as you are doing now is not acceptable. Vandalizing another editor's remarks is also disruptive, and any editing of other's comments is very generally disruptive as well... even well-meaning changes are strongly discouraged. I have been cautioned about this before. See wp:talk page guidelines.

Please see wp:COI for an understanding of how the discussion by Orlady was related to the content.

I must tell you that if you continue down this path, I feel confident that you will eventually be unable to edit. - Sinneed  20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know Sineed, but her comments were clearly against WP policies by attacking me individually. She could have spoken about the facebook page, but speaking about me and using foul language is unacceptable.  No vandalism was meant by that at all, I was not aware that strikethrough unacceptable conduct was unacceptable itself Flyboi9 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I explain at the talk page, I see nothing inappropriate in the post under account Orlady.- Sinneed  22:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Giving a read to wp:single purpose account might be worthwhile as well.- Sinneed  22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Orlady was clearly attacking me and wp:assuming that I was someone on an external site. That has nothing to do with the article and the strikethrough was not meant to be vandalism.  She needs to focus on the content.  Flyboi9 (talk) 04:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

wp:NPA
Don't do this again. You know better.- Sinneed  05:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sineed, with all due respect, there was no personal attack. In one of the disputes, wikiwag even "joked" about being with JHACO or one of those organizations.  You and wikiwag have removed several edit by numerous users that gained a lot of support for different things on the wp:Family Foundation School article.  Almost all negative things on that page have been removed, while both you and wikiwag  have had no issues with any of the positive aspects of it.  Take it how you want, but there was no Personal Attack at ALL

January 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Family Foundation School. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Orlady (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion  (talk)  23:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Family Foundation School yet again
Please stop introducing the contested section to the article. When something like this is contested the normal procedure is to leave things at the status quo (in this case the information not in the article) and discuss things on the talk page. If you read the discussion on the talk page you're notice that, although the reliable source issue may now be solved, the concerns of other users aren't just related to reliable sources but also neutrality and giving the issue too much prominence. Please discuss these issues and gain consensus on the talk page before inserting the information again. At the moment you are continuing a slow motion edit war and if you insert the information again withou consensus on the talk page I will have no choice but to report you for edit warring and this could lead to you being blocked again. Dpmuk (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my warning above I have reported you for edit warring here. You continue to revert to your version and then try to discuss which is not how we do things here.  We discuss and get consensus for controversial changes before making them and as such your repeated reverts have become disruptive. Dpmuk (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent edit warring to push a POV against clear talk page consensus, as you did at Family Foundation School. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CIreland (talk) 08:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

February 2014
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism, as you did to Family Foundation School, will not be tolerated. Although vandalizing articles on occasions that are days or weeks apart from each other sometimes prevents editors from being blocked, your continued vandalism constitutes a long term pattern of abuse. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. ''Long-term disruptive editing. '' Widefox ; talk 17:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC) This was not vandalism and was placed in good context and good faith, please refer to talk page Flyboi9 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)