:I have to take issue with the comment "I fully participating in the talk page" I'm sorry but you are mistaken. Your contributions clearly shows that you made substantial edits before any post to this talk page. I can understand why you might have made the edits without fully reviewing the history initially, but continuing after you were reverted, without reading the talk page to find why you your edits were disputed (where you would have noted there were multiple active users discussing issues closely retaliated to you edits), especially when the initial revert edit summary was "Please seek and develop consensus at "Discussion" before blanking massively" is simply not behaviour that supports the comment "I fully participating in the talk page" 
JJL's edits in November were inappropriate, (i think even JJL would agree it was not the best method to improve the article). While there have been other flair-ups, both he, Manacpowers and others engaged in long (and sometimes heated) discussions while not editing except in consensus. While the article was not as they would have wished and their were debates and disputed without edit wars.
Characterising Badagnani's edit as revert warring also characterises yours as such, it Takes Two to Tango (or edit war), especially when the initial revert was a polite requests to discuss the large removals. On you comments on 'gamesmanship' could you explain further? As you seem to imply much but state little. 1481