You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. . Also, I noticed that you copied a sentence from the Rajput page to political marriages in India that glorified the Rajput community but you did not copy the very next sentence that said that this was unreliable. Please can you explain especially since the frivolous reason you give to blank out sourced content is WP:NPOV? Blanking sourced and reliable content added by multiple editors across the years without giving a non-frivolous reason is considered vandalism.LukeEmily (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LukeEmily You have provided no evidence. Looking at your editing history as well as your interactions with others, you know well that you can be sanctioned for leaving these types of messages. You should avoid this unproductive behavior. NxcryptoMessage17:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in your edit history. Your second sentence makes no sense. The POV copying related to Rajput is part of your edit history. If you need specific links, please let me know and I will point to your specific edits - although you should be aware of them since you made them.LukeEmily (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reactions to warning messages are broadly unacceptable. Blanking Ekdalian's edit war warning, as you did, is allowed; editors have a lot of freedom in how to handle their own talkpages; but copypasting the same warning right back to Ekdalian is simply retaliatory trolling. (How could Ekdalian be ignorant of a rule they have warned you about? It's just nonsensical to warn them back.) And your vague aspersions against LukeEmily in response to their detailed warning just above are pretty scandalous also. This is supposed to be a collaborative website, and civility is policy. Please try to keep that in mind, and also try to avoid making up rules that don't actually exist, as when you tell a user above that "removing a warning message is not a generally acceptable practice". Yes, it is generally acceptable. You yourself would be in a lot of trouble if it wasn't. Bishonen | tålk20:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Hello @Bishonen, but where have I exactly violated WP:CIVIL? LukeEmily is the one trying to accuse me of vandalism by falsifying its definition and contradicting WP:NOTVAND and has also falsely claimed that I provided no "valid reason" in my edit summaries. You should check that. The edit you have cited from 10 October does show that I did not have the right idea about the warnings at that time, nevertheless I have corrected the above issue raised by you[1]. I manually reverted back the edit warring warn of Ekdalian[2] because now I understood it can be removed. Also : ...but copypasting the same warning right back to Ekdalian..., is also wrong because I used Twinkle not any copy-pasting: NxcryptoMessage02:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bishonen for the above message. Nxcrypto, there is hardly any difference between copy-pasting the message and using Twinkle to post the same message. Hope you have read Bishonen's message properly, where she has clearly mentioned, How could Ekdalian be ignorant of a rule they have warned you about? It's just nonsensical to warn them back.Ekdalian (talk) 05:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should have read the notes at the top of my talk page! For example, "This user is aware of the three-revert rule" and "Please don't template me!" Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not irrelevant. Please use common sense: both the fact that Ekdalian templated you first, and that they have a "3RR aware" note on their page, means that the formality is null and void. I understand now that you thought it might not be, but please recollect it for the future. Bishonen | tålk09:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. . Also, I noticed that you copied a sentence from the Rajput page to political marriages in India that glorified the Rajput community but you did not copy the very next sentence that said that this was unreliable. Please can you explain especially since the frivolous reason you give to blank out sourced content is WP:NPOV? Blanking sourced and reliable content added by multiple editors across the years without giving a non-frivolous reason is considered vandalism.LukeEmily (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
