User talk:Neutral contributor

Neutral contributor, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Neutral contributor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit pages in my user space.[edit]

Do not edit TW logs in my user space. LGA _talk^edits 04:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not... I did visit your user space, but did not realize that i have edited it!Neutral contributor (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Account[edit]

Have you edited WP with another account ? Is the account User:Drbkmurali related to you ? LGA _talk^edits 04:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have any other account. I will not edit articles about myself, my business, my clients, or my competitors. The only interest i have in the hospital is that i stay in Nagpur and my friends have taken treatment in the hospital and would like to see some articles on certain places of interest of Nagpur in wikipedia.I totally realize that my role is to summarize, inform and reference the article.I have tried to state facts and statistics in my articles. Neutral contributor (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013[edit]

Your recent editing history at Hope Hospitals 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. LGA _talk^edits 06:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits for a reason. I was reverting presuming it as a case vandalism. When reverting, I indicated my reasons in the edit summary and talk page. My presumption was that this was a likely case of illegitimate blanking of Hope Hospitals. Referenced information or important verifiable references were deleted with no valid reason given in the summary. The text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view over a period of 3 months.

I shall definitely work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. thanks for your advice! Neutral contributor (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drbkmurali for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. LGA _talk^edits 04:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]