This is an archive of past discussions about User:NXcrypto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello NXcrypto. May i suggest that your signature as i currently find it is perhaps not in line with WP:CUSTOMSIG in that it is not at all easy to work out your username because of all the flecks all the way around it. Perhaps you'd consider making it a little simpler? Happy days, ~ LindsayHello07:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks good :) I noticed that in your welcomes you have welcomed several users who are blocked; now i haven't looked to see which came first (block or welcome), but either way seems as though it is a bit of a slap in the face ~ as well as your action being essentially pointless. Maybe check that new users are actually making useful edits before you welcome them? Or, if not, undo their edit(s) and explain why, as you can see i did with user:Malevolence96. So, what are you interested in editing? Don't just be a welcomer but an actual editor, eh? Happy days, ~ LindsayHello08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@LindsayH Yes, indeed, that was a mistake on my part. I inadvertently extended a welcome to some members who had previously been blocked. However, I have since rectified this oversight and am now only extending greetings to newly registered members. You can clearly observe this improvement in my most recent 50 edits. Moreover, I am also interested in reverting vandalism, which I have been actively working on for the past two weeks. However, I also find being a member of the welcoming community enjoyable and rewarding. Best Regard. NxcryptoMessage08:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Since when does the native name of the article subject have inline citation right next to it? Are you playing with me rn? Desertasad (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Most Wikipedia articles include citations for native names. If not provided, anyone can challenge and remove such information. Please refrain from engaging in POV pushing. NxcryptoMessage08:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Could you please specify what you meant by "most" in number? Because even native name in articles of notable subjects don't have inline citation. That's why I was confused when you argued that native names should be sourced. Desertasad (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
And, you added the inline citation next to native name in the first paragraph, while previously you removed native name in the infobox instead. If your reason for that was purely because of the need of reliable source, you should have removed one in the first paragraph as well. Desertasad (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shudra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chandragupta. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
You are involved in restoring vandal IP edits. Possibly you're a WP:SOCK of that IP. Both are involved in editing same pages, with similar editing style.[2]
I use the word "agenda" because I read it in the ips edit. Also I looked into their claim and found out that it was true. Also what editing style? I literally just reverted a page. Why would I use an IP when I have an account? Donteatgarlic (talk) 10:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Mustafa Mamun for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Mustafa Mamun to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sohopathi for deletion, because it's a redirect from an article title to a namespace that's not for articles.
If you don't want Sohopathi to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
@BangladeshiEditorInSylhet Yes, it is. The neutrality of Prothom Alo newspaper is disputed. Matiur Rahman, the publisher and editor of this newspaper, is allegedly seen as a biased Marxist. It may be more effective to reference a more reliable source in place of this. Regards. NxcryptoMessage16:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hey you undid some of my edits on Chandragupta Maurya but I have restored them with source and removed your warning msg from my talk page.You can give feedback.Thanks Edasf (talk)04:17,6 October 2024 (UTC)
@Edasf Basically removing a warning message is not a generally acceptable practice as you did here. Warnings serve a purpose in maintaining the standards of our edits and ensuring constructive collaboration. Please consider adhering to these protocols in the future. NxcryptoMessage09:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
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).
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[3]. I manually reverted back the edit warring warn of Ekdalian[4] 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)
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)
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)
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).
you have been blanking sourced sections of multiple mostly non-Rajput pages
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)
@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)
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)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Czello (music) 10:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Donteatgarlic. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Donteatgarlic (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
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)