| Revision as of 02:10, 25 April 2013 editAnastomoses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users928 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:58, 25 April 2013 edit undoAnastomoses (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users928 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| ] Please stop your ]. The next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ] and ] you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning4 --> ] (]) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | ] Please stop your ]. The next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ] and ] you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4 --><!-- Template:uw-cluebotwarning4 --> ] (]) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ] Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. '''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. | |||
| To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. See ] for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. <!-- Template:uw-3rr --> | |||
Revision as of 03:58, 25 April 2013
Please stop your disruptive editing. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Jay Sadguru Swami and BAPS you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anastomoses (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive?
How is this disruptive editing? Please explain? This is a fact that you seem incapable of handling. Why cannot there be a controversy section?
It is disruptive WP:DE because it fails to Misplaced Pages verifiability standards and is tendentious with a deliberate intention of sabotaging page with your personal bias against BAPS and is thus non-NPOV. Therefore please refrain from vandalizing page further. Anastomoses (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Bias?
I have no personal bias towards baps. Just because I am pointing out facts that are overlooked by research and covered up by people like you. Your apparent bias is unbelievably ridiculous. Most people do not know that baps has changed multiple scriptures and there is evidence and will be update. I am traveling to Rajkot next month and have an appoint with the Mahant of that temple to go over the original Swamini Vato. I believe BAPS has changed words in that book and I have noticed that as Pramukh swami approaches his death, sensitive followers like you have the need to keep up the spin. This no way means that baps is bad or wrong but you seem to have a personal biased to even mentioning that baps changes words to fit their ideology.
I have posted sent the link for the Aarti changes, Swamini Vato preliminary copies to researchers currently studying swaminarayan cults.
There are have been turf wars in India that have resulted in violence and these needs to be acknowledged.
I find it interesting that when my collogues post the sex scandals and funds misappropriations by the Aacharya's in the the original cult, the members there seem to get sour because of their beliefs.
Until you present evidence that this has not happened, my team and I will continue to update articles as needed and not have biased inclinations like yourself.
Please stop your disruptive editing. The next time you vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Jay Sadguru Swami and BAPS you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Anastomoses (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.