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)

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. I have undone your edit regarding the discontinued state of TrueCrypt. —f3ndot (TALK) (EMAIL) (PGP) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 5 albert square (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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 should be more careful with her banhammer in the future. -- intgr [talk] 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They're not banned, they're merely blocked. Please learn the difference before further embarrassing yourself   the panda ₯’  00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Origamiteis out right now 02:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamian (talk • contribs)
 * Do not open a second request. I don't want to WP:IAR, but someone will close one shortly. Origamiteis out right now 19:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origamian (talk • contribs)