User talk:Sratneshwaran

See the talk page you can't remove relevant cited info like that to fit your own personal pov leaving any bad. Sorry its not the way wiki runs. Please don't remove content like this anymore. If you have issues or questions about this, address them on the articles talk page. [] --Xiahou 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I was nice took the high road and you turn around and do it again. So. Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Xiahou 00:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking back a few days and your still at it blanking sections - []

[] Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Xiahou 00:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Xiahou, I do understand what you are saying. Remember wikipedia is for people to understand other cultures and things that you dont know about. If some body said the following about christianity " Christianity is a highly intolerant religion and is grows by forced conversion in all the third world countries" and also probably cites some references using bogus web-sites would you consider this "IN THE SPIRIT OF WIKIPEDIA" I wouldnt. Thats the reason for my edit. All I did was remove all objectionable content in "Swadhyay Parivar" and put what is most necessary for others to understand. I do have citations and many such proofs showing that what I have edited is credible. What u should be worried about is anonymous users just killing the content content in Wikipedia using it as a slandering tool or propaganda machine. So consider my edits as cleanup rather than vandalism or we may have to change the definition of vandalism


 * "I do have citations and many such proofs showing that what I have edited is credible" and yet you fail to show them while blanking entire sections. Blanking sections with no edit summary or reason listed on talk page is blanking vandalism. --Xiahou 02:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the talk page about this [] and contribute to why you think your blanking of sections is ok. I am not getting into this on a level of content to make it an edit war. When cited statements and entire sections are deleted I revert it regardless if I like the article or not. Personal preference doesn't play into it. I revert vandalism and blanking is vandalism. --Xiahou 02:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

You have also violated the 3rr rule []This is your last warning. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Xiahou 03:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the book that is outlined
Read the book that is outlined in this entry and also follow the links that I have added. That will show that all that is added by a couple of vandals is complete garbage and is actually a propaganda campaign launched against somebody who has done great work to restore the sanity of todays society. Please step back follow the links and take a look before you do any further changes. Especially the fact that Edward11 seem to have stored content of the propaganda that is added to the article should seem particularly suspicious, especially when it is done in India time. You should be taking a look.

You should follow wiki policies. You've broken the 3rr rule. You've vandalized the page by blanking sections now past your final warning. You've been turned in on the 3RR board and now I am turning you in for the blanking past last warning. Your repeated efforts to vandalize articles  makes it seem that you are unaware that Wikipedia is a serious project. You have been reported to the administration group for continuing vandalism and an administrator will review your contributions shortly. You may not receive another warning before being blocked, so be careful and be serious from now on. If you are blocked, please consider changing your behavior when the block expires. --Xiahou 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ready for the verdict
Hi am fully ready for the outcome of the administrators on this. I believe in what I am doing because just look at what others have added. Just pure propaganda. So lets take an example. We have a wikipedia entry for Joe Wiki. " Joe Wiki (1923-1985) Joe Wiki is a great philanthropist who toiled all his life for for helping mankind. He went all the way from Japan to the USA helping needy people around the world. He did this till he died in 1985.  " Now Propaganda specialists who have something against Joe Wiki especially those who are looking at destroying Joe Wikis work will try to do the following. " Joe Wiki (1923-1985) Joe Wiki is a great philanthropist [citation needed] who toiled all his life for for helping mankind [citation needed]. He went all the way from Japan to the USA [citation needed]helping needy people around the world. He did this till he died in 1985.  But before dying he killed around 25 people.

Links http://bogusite.com/bogusblog.htm Joe Wiki Murders http://bullshitnews.com/bs.htm Joe Wikis exploits " How do we intend to stop this? How do we uphold the pure content which is present in the original edit.  "Christianity is a murderous religion" can be one of the links and I can give you many many web-sites which can authenticate that.  Please let me know how wikipedia plans to STOP THIS?

Three revert rule violation on Swadhyay Parivar
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. First offense: 24 hour block. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st revert
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th