User talk:Antiscam25

December 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at IYogi, you may be blocked from editing. ''

Once again (as was pointed out to you when you edited as an IP) : if you have specific, sourced criticism against the company it belongs in the article, but adding invectives and random, unsourced accusations really isn't okay. bonadea'' contributions talk 11:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to IYogi. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A friendly comment
You've been editing iYogi, and there's been dispute about it. I'd like to suggest why you shouldn't edit this article. On the one hand, as others have made obvious, your edits will be reverted, so you will be wasting your time; and you might get blocked; that's obvious. But there's another reason. I have made some contributions to the article, adding sourced information about its activities, including verifiable sourced material about criticism for the sort of activities you're probably angry about. (I also add any verifiable information favourable to the company (not produced by them), or neutral. There have been lots of additions to iYogi misplay calling them scammers and the like, without any supporting sources;  not only do they get reverted bu::

Sometimes people presuming trying to show the company in a good light take advantage when reverting the unsuitable text to "accidentally" delete properly sourced criticism. This sort of "sanitisation" justified by an edit summary like "removing POV", has a good chance of not being noticed; it doesn't add anything questionable to the article, just removes stuff that won't be noticed. Here's an example of such a "cleanup" last year; this is the edit difference where I restored all the deleted stuff. You can look at edits just before to see how someone had added a few comments about "scamming" (as you're doing). I've made quite a few edits over the years; you can check them in the article History.

So, adding comments about scamming and such (1) won't stay in the article, so it doesn't do what you want, and (2) can give people an excuse and a chance to delete sourced criticism with the pretext of removing the other stuff, doing the opposite of what you want.

HTH, Pol098 (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)