User talk:ARUNKUMAR P.R

1:11 pm, 12 August 2024 (IST) ArunKumar's userpage | talk | stats | subpages| awards|my articles| my signature archive Arun Arun Arun Arun If you feel that I have reverted an edit or issued a warning in error, please click here and let me know. I am human, and I do make mistakes. Please don't interpret an error on my part as a personal attack on you. It's not, I promise. I ask you to simply bring it to my attention; I am always open to civil discussion. (I will respond on your talk page.) Thank you. Attention Vandals!!! If you are thinking of vandalizing this page, think again.You have a better option of vandalizing here. Vandalism done there will not be counted and you will get another chance to repent your actions.You can then contribute to Wikipedia constructively. If you ignore this warning and vandalize this page, then you are guaranteed a block. Thank you. This page last updated at 2009-12-09 08:26:28. I honestly do not believe I have be destructive in any way. I have only added to Wikipedia. Unsigned comment by Rpe100 Ok I'll do that from now on. Forgot that Huggle had an undo button. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Indigent And I quote: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. In what possible way can you possibly mis-characterise my redirect to the Wiktionary definition of "Indigent" as vandalism? ... You are the vandal, not me. You obviously see yourself as some kind of vigilante bent on crushing contributions from others (as is evident from your own words on your user page). Please be precise, don't just wave the word "vandalism" as though it is some magic stick to beat over the heads of people who are actually contributing to Wikipedia. The redirect to Wiktionary is appropriate and correct, because the Wiktionary entry actually defines this word, whereas the Wikipedia article is a general discussion on the history, causes and possible programs to reduce poverty ... which may allude to "indigent" but in no way is enlightening in terms of defining the word "indigent" ... please find something constructive to do if you wish to be a positive influence on Wikipedia. Your manner and approach are not only destructive; they are also both rude and patronizing. You really should read the following: Wikipedia is losing editors. Is free user generated content dying? Also, do click on the WSJ link and view the videos there. I know several people who previously contributed to Wikipedia, but no longer do so because they are fed-up with others who are less knowledgeable than themselves distort or destroy what they have contributed, often in the name of "vandalism" or "lack of citations" ... Wikipedia is not and never should be a mirror of Google. Just because something cannot be verified with a few clicks does not mean it is false (as some here seem to believe). To be blunt, I believe that it is self-righteous individuals such as yourself who are irritating the body of editors who were previously contributing and are now getting fed up with self-appointed vigilantes such as yourself who identify themselves as part of the Wikipedia cliqué. Please don't rush to the keyboard and fire off some poorly thought out knee-jerk response. You need to ponder whether what you are doing is actually helping or hindering the future viability and reliability of Wikipedia. 66.183.96.74 (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)