15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

> Basically - the initial warning was this.The other two he marked above are warnings on removing the first warning a number of times on the pretext that Admins have agreed [implying that admins have agreed that it is right to say "SOCK ARMY"] - considering that the editor has repeatedly been asked not to use confrontational language, Wikipedia is not a battlefield and comment on content and not the editor - at the time of that remark he was still on a block for incivilty.Use of such language is not civil and remindful that he has not mend his ways.I could have been wrong to assume and that is why I asked him to seek an admins views before removing but he blanks out the warning saying he only "unrendered" the warning - in turn I got rewarded by this on my user page 

Revert-warring is bad. If a user does something wrong, posting one warning generally does the job. There is no need to repeat it again as it only exacerbates the situation. Instead leave an edit summary with the word Warning and report it to the admin who comes to the concerned user talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 14: