User talk:Claus at Name Defend DE
Welcome!
|
October 2014
- Thanks for your message. However, my edit is a constructive edit to uphold a core policy of the Wikimedia Foundation's "Terms of Use" - to prevent impersonation of the named organisation. The controversial deleted text was inserted by another paid editor "Sitush", against whom the affected organisation has very recently filed a criminal complaint in India, including for impersonating a History graduate from Peters House / Cambridge University so as to mislead the Wikipedia community and pose as an authority. Claus at Name Defend DE (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sitush is not a paid editor. We've gone through this many times. talk) 12:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)]
- Sitush is not a paid editor. We've gone through this many times.
Your recent editing history at India Against Corruption 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
There is currently a discussion at
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NebY (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
@Admin:Euryalus I have emailed you, as there are issues pertaining to the author of these falsehoods. Claus at Name Defend DE (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)