User talk:Truth is the only religion

I started to edit the Brahma Kumari religion topic page. I have some Brahma Kumari followers trying to stop me from doing so in anyway possible by putting in lots of reports and accusations. If things look like a mess on this page, please consider this and understand why it is happen. Please compare the actual edits I have made.

October 2014

There is currently a discussion on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. EternalFloette (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warned for edit warring per a complaint at WP:AN3

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please see WP:AN3#User:Truth is the only religion reported by User:McGeddon (Result: Warned). The warning is about your edits at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. The next time you remove more than 1,000 bytes of text from the article in one day you may be blocked for edit warring without further notice. The way to avoid sanctions is to get a talk page consensus for your change.

A good place to have a discussion would be in the talk thread at Talk:Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University#Recent changes to article. At least two of the participants there are general-purpose editors with a lot of Wikipedia experience. A thread called 'Content focus' includes some remarks by User:Adjwilley who is an administrator. If you are concerned about possible bias in the article, these people should have good advice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed edit warring at Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Per your continuing with a revert that removes more than 1,000 bytes of material in a single edit after being warned not to do so per the result of the WP:AN3 case mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may remember that a while ago I looked into a suggestion that this account is a Sockpuppet, used to evade blocks on other accounts. If you do remember that, then you may recall that I decided not to take any action at that time, but that I made a specific point of saying that I was by no means ruling out the possibility that the account is a sockpuppet, and that it might yet be blocked. Examination of your recent edits leaves no room for doubt: this account is clearly a sockpuppet. In addition, your editing has been highly disruptive in many ways, which I will not spend time enumerating, as it has all been said before by numerous editors, so you must be aware of what the problems are. The block that EdJohnston placed on this account has therefore been extended to indefinite. Do not edit Wikipedia again unless and until you make an unblock request on your original account and it is accepted by an administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]