User talk:Falseswamiji

June 2013[edit]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Swami Maheshwarananda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice Do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Nobody has been charged with a crime or convicted. Your sources are not quite reputable. Stop dishonestly discredit without solid evidence. It is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people even with the principles fairness at all. Lakata (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by DELETING very well sourced content of an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Swami Maheshwarananda, you will be blocked from editing without further notice. WIKIPEDIA Policy on biographies of living people, public figures like Swami Maheshwarananda : " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it".

JUST AS IN 2011 this is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Swami Maheshwarananda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice Stop Stop constantly add defamatory content to Wikipedia. The original sources of articles may not be serious. No one has been charged with a crime or convicted. Consequently, adding defamatory content without solid evidence (a lady said that) to Wikipedia is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people even with the principles fairness at all. Lakata (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013[edit]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Swami Maheshwarananda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by DELETING sourced content of an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Swami Maheshwarananda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. WIKIPEDIA Policy on biographies of living people, public figures like Swami Maheshwarananda : " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". All my edits are to undo vandals deleting of important information about Swami Maheshwarananda . So stop threatening and try to be objective instead of forcing your opinion over reality. thanx.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Legoktm (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Falseswamiji (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

" If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it"'

Decline reason:

Your edits are extremely controversial and have been reverted by other editors. Despite multiple warnings and a previous block you still are trying to bulldoze your desired changes in to a WP:BLP. This is why you were blocked and you will need to explain how you will edit in a constructive fashion to address the concerns raised by other editors if you wish to be unblocked. (hint: read this and this). Given your username your sole purpose appears to be to disparage the subject of one of our articles and that is certainly not inline with Wikipedia policy. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user (block log | active blocks | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs | abuse log) has had their talk page access revoked because an administrator has identified this user's talkpage edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. If you would like to make further requests, you may contact the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-appeals-en@lists.wikimedia.org. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 16:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]