User talk:256Drg

May 2021
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Jallianwala Bagh massacre, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Shivaji, you may be blocked from editing. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No Great Shaker This is not a disruptive edit. I am well informed about Indian history and would like to contribute to Wikipedia in a constructive manner. But I see that there is a great wall built to go ahead. Anyways! Indian history can not be suppressed by some random individuals. The time is about to over for such things...! Good luck...!

Do not introduce controversial material into an article without seeking consensus first. This especially applies to content that has already been discussed at length and has not gained consensus to be included. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:SIG, all editors without exception are required to sign talk page entries with four tildes ( ~ ). You have not done this on any of the messages you have posted. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't add false flags on my talk page for single edit I have done. Maybe I am inexperienced on Wikipedia but I know the tricks. I request administrators of Wikipedia to check my history before taking any action on my account. No Great Shaker is abusing his powers.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Blaze The Wolf &#124; Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Shivaji shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You said that "consensus cannot be achieved by arguing with polarised mindset." Maybe not, but it certainly cannot be achieved without any discussion at all. Why do you refuse to present your arguments on the article talk page? Of course, discussing there means that you will also have to listen and try to understand the arguments of those who believe that the content belongs in the article, and if you fail to persuade the other editors, you will have to accept that the consensus is against you. That is also part of collborative editing. --bonadea contributions talk 20:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godi media. ''This is a textbook example of tendentious editing. The article Godi media has absolutely no connection to the article Shivaji, nor to Winston Churchill. bonadea'' contributions talk 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANI
Although you initiated this ANI case, it is only fair to let you know that your disruptive edits are now under discussion and you may wish to explain your actions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Signature
Hello, I see you are new to Wikipedia. Per WP:SIGNATURE, please add your signature to each of your postings on talk pages. You can do this using four tildes from your keyboard, or clicking the signature icon on the edit toolbar.. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)