User talk:Hirohitko

October 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 3rd Brahmans. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello I recently noticed your edit on different articles which seemed to me more like Puffery for caste POV push and quite unconstructive to me hence i reverted it. If you want to practice, kindly use your Sandbox. If you think i made a mistake and i'm missing something, please use my talk page to reach me. Vedant Katyayan (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC) Blocked sock. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vedant Katyayan I think you are jealous and ignorant of glorious history of warrior race charans. I am from Rajasthan and everyone here calls Charans as most powerful warrior race. You just don't want to accept the fact. Hirohitko (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hirohitko I am dejected to know that you being Charan are supporting this guy who in jealousy is fiddling with our history. He is constantly deleting matter from our page . He has done that with your page also but now when we are reverting it, why did you just delete it ? 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:6D09:5455:143E:359B (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2409:40D4:2006:9F21:6D09:5455:143E:359B I think he does not know well about Charan history and now he is not doing anything with our page. I stand with truth only for which my caste was known for. Rajpurohit were just priests nothing more and you want to fool other people that they were warriors and rajguru which is very wrong. You people are making fake stories and editing rajpurohit page with poor references. True history should be told to other people. Hirohitko (talk) 16:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the history of Rajpurohits. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:6D09:5455:143E:359B (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hirohitko! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @AntiDionysius

After you reverted to the correct detailed matter, @Hirohitko has again deleted it. Kindly restore that sir. 2409:40D4:2006:9F21:4974:DC65:BE4D:B05A (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AntiDionysius Which reference in that article tell that rajpurohit were martial race and kshatriya-brahmin or many other such data in that page which have no source but lies. i have only made revert 2nd time to the revision of old editor and it is not edit war yet. As old editor you should be on side of truth and stop people from spreading lies with 0 reference Hirohitko (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as I've already said, I have no view whatsoever on the content dispute. I am interested in getting the edit warring to stop. Go discuss these sourcing and content issues on the talk page.

It is true that you've only reverted twice, but it is possible to be engaged in edit warring without violating the three-revert rule, as the edit-warring policy says very clearly in its second paragraph. When there's so much reverting going on, I don't think your second revert (especially a revert of a restoration of an old, pre-EW version of the article) was very constructive. I also note that above you directed personal attacks towards user Vedant Katyayan. Please do not do that again. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Anantam tripathi per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anantam tripathi. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]