Deleted Material  Kripalu PR StaffSadly one editor insists on deleting five sentences neutrally factual  sourced to Mass Dept of Environmental Protection the federal EPA and the New York Times This same editor makes unsupportable accusations of Conflict of Interest Interestingironic that Kripalu article was also somewhat recently edited by a Kripalu executive who similarly objected to wellsourced  neutral material from IRS documents So the Kripalu PR people are apparently watchingHere are the deleted five sentencesThe state had reported in 2003 that this subsurface public drinking water system was subject to a high threat of contamination from possible pesticide overuse or potential fuel spills9 The federal Environmental Protetion Agency listed nine reporting and monitoring violations for that same system between 1998 and 200110A 2008 report said Kripalus wellbased watersupply system contained one form of uranium and two forms of radium in amounts below legal limits but above federal health guidelines111213In 2007 the state set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalus wells due to health hazards exacerbated by a construction project in the area of the well1415 Removing neutrally presented factual  relevant material is of course harmful to the interests of Wikipedia readersto be edited  Calamitybrook you might read some of the many many responses made over time about these issues  You might consider wpdispute resolution or wpRfC to gather support for your position However your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help see again guidance on your talk page this talk page wpCOIN wpWQA Please follow it Sinneed 

    ####Prompt- Does the next message are offensives ? reply with a JSON object (without carriage return or new lines)
    with keys :
    isoffensive (True if it's offensive).
    This this the message : 
Deleted Material  Kripalu PR StaffSadly one editor insists on deleting five sentences neutrally factual  sourced to Mass Dept of Environmental Protection the federal EPA and the New York Times This same editor makes unsupportable accusations of Conflict of Interest Interestingironic that Kripalu article was also somewhat recently edited by a Kripalu executive who similarly objected to wellsourced  neutral material from IRS documents So the Kripalu PR people are apparently watchingHere are the deleted five sentencesThe state had reported in 2003 that this subsurface public drinking water system was subject to a high threat of contamination from possible pesticide overuse or potential fuel spills9 The federal Environmental Protetion Agency listed nine reporting and monitoring violations for that same system between 1998 and 200110A 2008 report said Kripalus wellbased watersupply system contained one form of uranium and two forms of radium in amounts below legal limits but above federal health guidelines111213In 2007 the state set an August 2009 deadline for retirement of one of Kripalus wells due to health hazards exacerbated by a construction project in the area of the well1415 Removing neutrally presented factual  relevant material is of course harmful to the interests of Wikipedia readersto be edited  Calamitybrook you might read some of the many many responses made over time about these issues  You might consider wpdispute resolution or wpRfC to gather support for your position However your abusive behaviour is not likely to draw much in the way of help see again guidance on your talk page this talk page wpCOIN wpWQA Please follow it Sinneed 

