User talk:Large swipe

Teahouse!

Hi Large swipe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't harass users, please

Retaliatory posting of a discretionary sanctions notice on an editor who just posted the same on you, as you did here, is rude as well as illogical. How could that person fail to be aware of rules they just informed you about? As for re-posting the notice after the user has removed it, that is explicitly forbidden. Don't harass users, please. Note also that tendentious editing in order to promote a particular caste is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Also, could you tell me whose sock you are, please? Bishonen | tålk 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Alright.

बिशोनेन Would you like to comment here on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1054050599 Large swipe (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't see the point of it. The idea of using a secondary source is precisely to not use merely a primary source (in this case, a letter from 1779). I'm flummoxed by the way you actually emphasize that you're relying on the letter itself, not Gupte's opinion of it (which would have been more useful). How do you believe the letter supports your case? Bishonen | tålk 20:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It is because the opinion of a single person, however well informed he may have been, does not matter in such complex matters. The letter was composed by a army of religious experts, after deep study of scriptures, for the Peshwa and it had real world implications. The Oxford University source, Milton and even Shankacharya relied on the letter, not the opinion of Gupte. I do not wish any edit war, if the sources pass the test of reliability, they should be added. Large swipe (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from Srivastava

You have been blocked for one month from the article Srivastava for edit warring and disruptive editing. Please take some time to actually read the guideline on reliable sources, because your edit summaries don't show much awareness of Wikipedia's sourcing principles. Note that you can still use the talkpage, Talk:Srivastava, something you have never done. That is where discussion is supposed to take place, and consensus reached; not in edit summaries, especially not by repeating the same edit summary no matter what you're told by experienced users and admins. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Noting past warnings

SPI clerk note: To admins reviewing this page in the future, please be aware of the warnings logged at User talk:Pandya101, which was likely a previous username of Large swipe's. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]