User talk:777executionprocess777

Many of your first edits either make an article worse, or add useless information to an article. Yes, a Dutch place will be in the Netherlands. Yes, Nova Scotia is in the Atlantic Ocean. Yes, capital punishment is sometimes called the death penalty. But none of these trivial facts needed to be placed in the articles where you added them. Likewise, a two-sentence article about an obscure athlete needs more substantive edits, not an unsourced assertion that he first played his sport professionally on such-and-such a day. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Information orange.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Consorts of Ganesha. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning pn.svg Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edit summaries appear to be in violation of Wikipedia policy regarding acceptable language, and may constitute a violation of Wikipedia policy regarding personal attacks. Your repeated reverts constitute edit warring, and may be grounds for loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 04:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed | 1=I am making the article better! If you would actually read it instead of just assuming that I am doing disruptive editing. This article was filthy and rude and had a lot of false information I needed to clarify. There is absolutely no reason for me to be blocked. 777executionprocess777 (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC) | decline = We don't "assume", we act [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha&diff=prev&oldid=697239776 on proof]. I'll note that if you resume this sort of behavior when your block expires the next block may well be for much longer. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)}}

No, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha&diff=prev&oldid=697239776 this] is exactly why you were blocked, and you well know it. --MuZemike 05:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• {{ping|777executionprocess777}} I have only just chanced upon your block, and I have seen the personal attacks you have been making...

:"If anyone tries to undo my edit than I consider them to be exactly like the demon Ravana"

:"So what if it is cited you prick? How could you be so evil? In the name of Jesus Christ, May God Almighty immediately damn you to eternal damnation of unquenchable pain and torture if you change it back again."

:"You are the worst <...>, I hope God damns you to eternal damnation"

:"I'm trying to purify this article and you're getting in my way with your filfth. In the name of Jesus Christ Oh God please Damn <...> immediately and severely. God Damn <...> you one billion times"

I think the blocking admin has been extremely lenient and you are very lucky not to have been blocked for considerably longer. I strongly urge you to radically change your approach to interaction with other people once your block expires, as you will certainly be facing a far more substantial block if you continue in this manner. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)