User talk:Baangla

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Bongan^® →TalkToMe← 14:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Continued violation of ECR

@331dot: Regardless of your detailed explanation for this user, as well as several editors already warning him here, he is still violating the condition of ECR for Indian military history by endlessly arguing on related talk pages by misusing edit requests, and is also edit warring. To make things worse, he has apparently erased the whole conversation while the same issue is recurring. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 02:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not edited any article that I am not supposed to. I am allowed to make ECP edit requests on the Talk page of ECP articles. I have not indulged in, "endlessly arguing" on the Talk page of any ECP article. Once an editor says that something is unacceptable, I don't request them to do it again. I have not erased anything, I have just archived it.-Baangla (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

If you really want to check, please check all my edits - I have not had the last say in any of them.-Baangla (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I request everyone to continue these arguments at one place, that is ZDRX's User Talk page here as I believe that I am being hounded as per WP:HOUNDING.-Baangla (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

You are endlessly editing talk pages of the article where you are not allowed to make any edits apart from seeking uncontroversial edits through edit requests. Your edits involve contentious POV pushing if anything. You are WP:GAMING the system.

Also, it is not wikihounding when disruptive edits are being checked. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 04:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not POV pushing, Perception312 agrees with my edit request - please read the text after clicking the link you provided just above this. WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, "enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either. All my edit requesys have been answered and I have not had the last say in any of them, so it is wrong to allege that I am, "endlessly editing talk pages of the article".-Baangla (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I will report you for hounding on the Administrators Notice board if you continue to stalk me or revert my edits on Talk pages..-Baangla (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

ZDRX Users are permitted to remove content from their own user talk page, this is considered an acknowledgement that it was read.

Baangla, I'm not sure that you've crossed the line yet, but you are dancing very close to it. I'm looking at Talk:Direct Action Day. Your requests there have not been something that no reasonable person could disagree with, and upon initial rejection you attempted to persuade the rejecting editor, engaging in discussion to achieve a consensus, which you shouldn't be doing. If you make an edit request and it is denied, you need to move on, not attempt to persuade.

Also understand that reporting other users for viewing your edits is likely to lead to your own edits being examined closely too(WP:BOOMERANG). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Warning

Baangla, you are close to being topic banned from South Asian topics. For topics that are related to South Asian social groups (castes, religious groups, political parties) or Indian military history, you can only post edit requests at article talk pages. Once you've posted an edit request, you need to leave it up to EC editors to evaluate and accept or reject the request. Extended back-and-forth about the requested edit is not acceptable, though a brief clarification every now and then is probably within the spirit of the guidelines. Make sure you are not pursuing conduct disputes related to this topic area at any page, including user talk pages, or asking questions about the topic area at any internal noticeboard. If you have questions about whether an action might violate the EC restriction, feel free to ask me or any recently active administrator.

I encourage you to focus more on matters that are distant by a healthy margin from the contentious topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:28, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay.-Baangla (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ZDRX#Indian_military_history_topics Anachronist has this to say, "What is it about my initial comment wasn't clear? Non-EC editors are permitted to propose edits on talk pages. The document says nothing about non-administrators taking enforcement actions, so a strict reading would imply that reverting an edit request should be done only by an administrator on ECR talk pages, although it may be likely that the wording is just sloppy. " and I believe everyone should read that - especially my User Talk page stalkers.-Baangla (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Bangla, some of the stuff you have raised in some of the these ECR discussions is interesting and should be looked into in slow time. Realistically, you are about a month from achieving ECR status. You would benefit enormously from gaining experience in less controversial topic areas. This is something that has been suggested to you several times by different editors - they cannot all be wrong! Please do not turn yourself into a Wikipedia lawyer - it will get you indefinitely blocked amazingly quickly. You seem to be quite a thoughtful sensible person who uses sources. Develop your good attributes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

You'll reach extended-confirmed a lot faster if you stop editing while logged out. Just saying. -- asilvering (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not done so after I created my account.-Baangla (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Baangla: Stop editing articles in the topic area. --tony 01:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not. Please read the message I copied from another editors User Talk page by Anachronist - you are not allowed to revert my edits.-Baangla (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey TonySt. Can you help me understand why you saw the Male Mahadeshwara Hills edits as ECR violations? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:16, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Firefangledfeathers. While doing RCP, this diff came across my AV feed, which appeared to be a non-EC editor changing names and details surrounding a caste association. I can see now that the changes were apparently cosmetic, but in the diff viewer Beredevara was changed to Berēdēvarā, among other similar changes. That encoding is unfamiliar to me -- typically glyphs show up normally and aren't html encoded - and I interpreted it as a more substantial change (in GSCASTE) than it apparently was. That belief was reinforced when I checked this talk page to make sure they were aware of CT/SA and found this thread about their edits in CT/SA, last edited minutes prior to me bumbling into this conversation. I'll be more cognizant of these encoding types and will err on the side of caution in the future :) --tony 01:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, sorry about that confusion Baangla -- I'll strike my comment. Take care --tony 01:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@331dot, Asilvering, and Firefangledfeathers: It is clear that Baangla is finding ways to cheat the system far too often. He has already gamed his way to gain WP:ECP. He made no less than 119 such unproductive bot-like edits. His ECP should be removed because it is result of massive gaming. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:GAMING states that only an edit war or trying to, "enforce a specific non-neutral point of view" is gaming, so it is wrong to accuse me of it as I have not indulged in either.-Baangla (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

My edits to the Male Mahadeshwara Hills article are not ECR violations as per TonySt and Firefangledfeathers - see their comments above yours.-Baangla (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Now this is inaccurate. Neither were evaluating over a hundred rapid-fire one-character edits. This is the second time you've declared behavior that was "cleared" that has nothing to do with what was said. As I said though, I'll see what the pinged admins say before considering making an ANI filing. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not even the point. Read again what I said above. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it does not say that; it gives many behaviors that are considered gaming. Specifically WP:PGAME which notes "making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level." I would have not thought it earlier, but after you were told that edits you wanted wouldn't be made because they weren't non-controversial, you've gone on a massive spree adding one character per edit. Many editors have had ECP removed for doing precisely this. I was considering taking it to ANI myself, but then saw Chronos' message (and want to see what the pinged editors say, if anything). ECP isn't just some big technical requirement, it's to ensure that people have some understanding of Wikipedia processes before they edit very sensitive areas. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 11:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Tell me you did not miss the very first sentence that says ""Gaming the system" means deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community." This has to be the first time I am seeing someone "gaming" over the interpretation of the word "gaming" itself. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not, "deliberately misused Wikipedia's policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community."-Baangla (talk) 11:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You have. First you frequently misused edit requests for evading ECR restricted area, and then you started making unnecessary and repetitive bot-like cosmetic edits to gain ECP. If that is not "deliberately misusing Wikipedia's policy or process", then what it is? Not to mention that you are still trying to prove yourself right when you know there is no way for doing so. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

IMMEDIATELY after getting ECP, Baangla made a comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Ram Mandir attack. I reverted it and was about to give a warning (I did not yet know Baangla had gained ECP. I had also previously warned the user of similar violations). It appears that the user has hastily attempted to game the system and gain ECP so as to tilt the consensus at the deletion discussion (Baangla had also attempted to comment in the same discussion before and had their comments removed by @ZDRX for violating WP:CT/IMH). I do not know if I should re-instate Baangla's comment or not and am waiting for advice from other editors, or maybe by admins, on the situation, since I have never really dealt with users gaming the system to try and edit in contentious topic areas, so I don't know how to proceed here. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you not read the message by Anachronist above which says, "What is it about my initial comment wasn't clear? Non-EC editors are permitted to propose edits on talk pages. The document says nothing about non-administrators taking enforcement actions, so a strict reading would imply that reverting an edit request should be done only by an administrator on ECR talk pages, although it may be likely that the wording is just sloppy. " and I believe everyone should read that - especially my User Talk page stalkers.-Baangla (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Anachronist's comment was regarding edit requests, not major engagement with articles or discussions. — EarthDude (Talk) 11:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chronos.Zx, I'm not familiar with whether we normally use macrons in those circumstances, but if we do, the edits are improvements, however small, and so I wouldn't call them gaming per se. That doesn't mean I think doing that and then immediately editing something ECR is a great idea. -- asilvering (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the thumbs up. I do believe that adding macrons help get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation. This source for example, mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits at Faridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted. Please see my request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefangledfeathers#Reverts - Baangla (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It's not enough to believe that this would be helpful for readers, since we've probably had a discussion about that somewhere already and come to a decision about whether or not to use macrons. It'll be somewhere in the WP:MOS. Or people at WP:INDIA might know. -- asilvering (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hi, I see you've been in some difficulties over the past few days. Wikipedia can be a tricky place to understand. It helps if you try to think about the system from the point of view of the people who created it - it's likely that you will understand it, and the community better.

It's like speed limits on roads - everyone understands they are for the safety of all, so most people obey them most of the time. People who don't... get sanctioned, unless there are very special circumstances. That doesn't mean driving at the speed limit is always safe or even possible.

So extended confirmed is a rule to protect both editors at large and new editors. It's applied to some articles where there is a lot of contention. It prevents people trivially creating sock puppets or new accounts just to edit that article, perhaps because they've been told to by some partisan group in the internet (these would be single purpose accounts setting out to Right great wrongs). It also prevents innocent new editors from blundering into a minefield. Building your edit numbers to enable you to edit contentious topics without actually gaining experience puts you at risk (as you have discovered) of getting involved in all sorts of disputes, even before you make a contentious edit.

The big question, of course, is how will you handle contentious edits? That's why a topic ban is being suggested - it looks like, at least at the moment, it's going to be very hard to build consensus with you. Wikipedia has content on very many contentious issues, including gun control, US politics, Israel/Palestine, where people with completely different viewpoints have come together to create useful, reliable articles. Also in those areas a significant number of editors have ended up either topic banned or denied editing rights altogether. It's much easier to get to know how these things work before you get involved in editing these topics than after.

Hope that helps.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC).

Okay, thanks. I feel that it is enough for the imposition of the WP:ECR and a topic ban is unnecessary but I don't think I can fight it.-Baangla (talk) 02:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Please see the comments by LordCollaboration at ANI.-Baangla (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

October 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: I have not indulged in vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming, editing with a conflict of interest or having a prohibited username. There was talk of a topic ban at ANI and suddenly, you come and block me indefinitely. Please give me the reason for skipping the topic ban and directly blocking me indefinitely. Novalite82, a now blocked user, came and requested an indefinite block and I just asked why a new user should request it - I don't think that that should elicit an angry response from the admins'. Can you at least change this indefinite block to a topic ban?-Baangla (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no anger in my decision to block you indefinitely. I will not unblock, so you'll need to convince ANOTHER admin to do it. The ANI thread was created to address to examine your prior bad WP:PGAMEing and that behavior was addressed by removing your automatically granted EC. So you've already been convicted, so to speak. It all would have ended there but you kept saying things. I took about an hour and read every one of your contributions to date. Wikipedians naturally assume good faith because it's a central pillar of our movement. But in that ANI discussion you abuse that good faith, especially after ECP was removed. You did game your permissions. But you were still using sarcasm with an uninvolved admin after they suggested an indef block. So the OP's suspicions were validated, and User:Mfield's interpretation of the situation was validated. I'd be willing to consider a lowering of block duration, but you'll need to admit to wrongdoing. So far you misunderstand your situation rather badly. BusterD (talk) 08:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: I apologise for any wrongdoing. At the ANI, the other admins were suggesting a topic ban and I had agreed to it. I was shocked to see you come and impose an indefinite block, without first imposing a topic ban. Please lower my block (as you suggested above). I promise to abide by the rules (and please let me know the rules I need to follow, especially what to avoid after a topic ban - if that is what you lower my block to).-Baangla (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Baangla - the best route to get unblocked is to make 6 months of useful contributions to another language Wikipedia. Then come back, having shown that you can be a net positive contributor.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me for correcting you, but the best route to get unblocked is to file a proper unblock request and make an appealing case. I've already stated my lack of willingness to unblock. In a taunting claim to MField at ANI, Baangla claims to have read the blocking policy. This is all up to Baangla now. BusterD (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

In their unblock request below, Baangla ignores my desire to see them admit to specific misbehavior. Once again they have made a blanket promise of reform in order to obtain their ends. I call that gaming behavior as well. Given proven accusations of gaming and previous grand statements they'd act more responsibly, it's fair to request admission of specific errors they have been made aware of making. BusterD (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll deign to boldly make one last attempt at explanation: I did not offer to change your indefinite block to a ban of any kind. That action is beyond the power of any admin, as your reading of WP:TBAN has surely shown you. In my offer ...to consider a lowering of block duration I suggested the need for trust between you and I to be demonstrated BEFORE I helped you. If your appeal to me is successful, then I'd be reducing the block length from indefinite down to 30-90 days. You'd still be blocked. For background I've been blocked and hated it; being blocked did not calm me down. It made me angry. The community has yet to decide on the TBAN matter, and their decision will be made without your (or my) further input. To get unblocked you need to convince me or an uninvolved administrator we can trust you. That means admission, repentance, and demonstration of willingness to change behavior. I see editors in the ANI discussion who seem to have more abundant good faith in you than I now do; perhaps one of them might one day offer to mentor you as an alternative to blocking or banning. From this point on, your block request will be answered by another trusted servant of the pedia. BusterD (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Okay, please reduce my indefinite block to a block of 30 days. Please also let me know what rules I need to read up before I start editing here again. Anger will only make my Blood Pressure shoot up, it will not harm others, what is the point of getting angry? I have mentioned what all I am apologising for below in my unblock request. I apologise to you, specifically again.-Baangla (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: I believe you are going to relax my sanction, so should I delete the below unblock request?-Baangla (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

You should breathe normally. I ask you to take the day off editing. Nobody's stopping you from just reading. And I have given you a reading assignment below. If I wake up tomorrow and everything looks as peachy as it looks now, I'll unblock. I may hold back access to some articles and spaces at my discretion. We will focus on not wasting the community's time ok? Volunteer time is Wikipedia's most valuable resource. One day when you and your new mentor(s) become WP:Administrators you'll feel the same way. At this moment I've got huskies to walk. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Baangla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I apologise for any wrongdoing. At the ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Gaming_the_system_to_achieve_extended_confirmed_status), the other admins were suggesting a topic ban and I had agreed to it. I was shocked to see BusterD come and impose an indefinite block, without first imposing a topic ban. Some editors have also opposed my indefinite block at the ANI discussion I have provided a link to above. One of them believes that the Cban is excessive as per WP:BITE and WP:ROPE must be extended to me. Please lower my block (as BusterD has suggested above). I promise to abide by the rules. In fact, I will ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse before making any edit that I feel will get me into trouble. BusterD in a response to my unblock request, typed above that he wants me to apologise for specific misbehaviour. I apologise for it - essentially, I pointed out to an admin that they should not take action against me if they are involved as per WP:INVOLVED which upset him. I apologise for it. Thanks!.Baangla (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You have been unblocked. See bottom of the page. PhilKnight (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've talked to an editor who is willing to consider mentoring you

They're processing it and may drop by. This discussion will be between you and the other editor, not you and Wikipedia. If you two can come to agreement I have promised to consider some immediate relaxation of the block, based on that discussion. This is their first mentorship offer so be nice. Don't beg; this a regular user. I can get you started but I won't keep you out of trouble; only your future choices will do so. Don't expect miracles. Be nice. Good luck. I'll watch. BusterD (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The fact that all this is happening is nothing short of a miracle for me. Thanks a lot. When will this block relaxation happen?-Baangla (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, maybe stop focussing on 'when will I be able to edit whatever I want' and focus on 'how can I become a productive, nondisruptive editor'. The first will only happen as a result of the second, so focus on the second. Valereee (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

OK.-Baangla (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentoring

Hi Baangla,

At the encouragement of another editor, I am happy to mentor you if you are open to that. I have never mentored anyone before, so this would be a learning experience for both of us.

To give some background on why I got involved in your discussion and why I would like to do this, when I started to get a bit more involved on Wikipedia, I happened to edit in an area that was XC protected, which I didn't even know existed at the time (removing some material that had no reliable source because the only two reliable sources I could find said the opposite). This is when I started getting hit with ECR stuff. Like you, not knowing the "gaming" rule, I decided to simply make more edits so I could contribute wherever I wanted to; I focused on typos and grammatical mistakes... And so was hit with the "gaming" rule. Mine ended up concluding as not gaming because my edits were considered constructive; I think yours being mostly macrons and having revert disputes is what got you in trouble.

I still don't know the rules here perfectly, but in general, my advice is to be constructive, be collaborative, and avoid annoying other users (and I should follow that last one more...). The rules are meant to establish a collaborative, constructive, and civil environment; even if you are right on the precise wording of a rule ("wikilawyering", as people call it), if most people don't think you are contributing to this, you are still going to get hit. Before knowing the rules better and how they are applied here, I would suggest just listening to older users when they tell you how they are applied.

If you are open to being mentored by me, I want to get to know you better, and hear honestly what you are looking to do here. If your goal is to contribute to controversial areas that interest you, we can work on making constructive changes first until you understand the environment better and then get back ECR. This will show users that you can contribute to the project constructively.

All the best! LordCollaboration (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I am open to all the suggestions you can give me. Can you start by letting me know what rules I should read up? If my block is relaxed, do you mind if I ask you if an edit is fine (not silly ones but only those I think will get me into trouble)?-Baangla (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about the rules yet. I think that's partially what got you in trouble here in the first place, too much focus on the wording of rules and then arguing over it. Everyone knows you are a new user, so it's okay to make accidental rule mistakes, the issue is arguing over it/reverting back/etc. Just focus on making constructive changes and collaborating and listen and apologize if someone says you messed up; over time, you will learn the how the rules are applied better.

Absolutely, you can definitely ask me that anytime. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The Five Pillars that BusterD posted explains this much better than me, and I would definitely suggest reading it closely. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay.-Baangla (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

I think your answers are a really good start. On the video game question, I would reread the first pillar though, and click through the links. Consider as well if you got a physical encyclopedia what you probably would and would not see, and why. LordCollaboration (talk) 01:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think you are just the right person to be my mentor. Thanks.-Baangla (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia

"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still result in sanctions." Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals#Purpose_of_Wikipedia, Passed 15 to 0 at 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are many versions but they all say the same thing. This means we are all here for the same reason. To make a book. The biggest book you can imagine. A book so gigantic it will never be complete. A book which lists everything a human being needs to know about every topic. A book written in every language. A book which is free to everyone who can find it. One of the most important books ever written. And you were editing it.

I take that seriously. And so do my many friends.

If you feel mad right now because you were blocked, I feel your pain because I was blocked once myself. But you were blocked because you were interfering with the Purpose of Wikipedia, not because you were making mistakes. The people you want to help, my friends the wikipedians, had to spend time on you and your disruptive edits. That was taking them away from making the book. Do you think mankind should have a book like the one we're all building together? If you do, read The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Don't just go there, read it. Read it again. Click on every link and read every one. Then go back to The Five Pillars, and read it again. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There will be a quiz. BusterD (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration and BusterD: I have read what you people told me to. The gist of it is that wikipedia is supposed to be written from a Neutral Point Of Vies with multiple viewpoints, to be civil and assume good faith - my favourite was what is written at WP:NOPA and every thing has to be paraphrased to avoid plagiarism charges and written with reliable sources.-Baangla (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: One single revert doesn't constitute an edit war, does it?-Baangla (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Be careful with paraphrasing. Close paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. WP:FIXCLOSEPARA has excellent advice on how to properly rewrite information to avoid copyright issues. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:53, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

That would be unusual in the extreme, unless there's parallel activity on related pages. This is a good start. Thanks for your willingness to let us rehabilitate the situation. Questions (open book; please sign each answer):

• 1) Why is it we strive to assume good faith, even when the user has been disruptive?

A:

• 2) Why does English Wikipedia avoid game playthrough articles?

A:

• 3) What's the difference between acting WP:BOLDLY and editing disruptively?

A:

• 4) Why are we helping you even though I blocked you earlier?

A:

This is a lot for your first day. Feel free to discuss these queries with LordCollaboration (or any other editor you choose). We'll talk in the morning. Long, long day for me. Thanks for making my day worthwhile. BusterD (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Answers:-
• 1) Why is it we strive to assume good faith, even when the user has been disruptive?

A: "That person probably just doesn't understand Wikipedia's standards of guidelines and policies, so it is good to assure good faith."-Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

There are a multitude of reasons users are disruptive. Some users still lack clue, some users get careless, some users make mistakes, some users disagree, some users are under stress, some users may have made difficult choices as best they can, some users may be bad actors. In each and every case, an application of WP:AGF will have a better chance to promote a harmonious outcome. Even in the case of obvious trolling (which I see most days) it is best to show good faith every step of the way. Bad actors are going to act badly. Don't be that person. Wikipedians can read. Admins can act. So don't act badly and you will fit right in here. BusterD (talk) 11:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• 2) Why does English Wikipedia avoid game playthrough articles?

A: Game playthrough articles are guides that detail how to complete specific levels, quests, or the entire game and may lead the makers of the game to sue wikipedia for hosting such information. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly correct. BusterD (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• 3) What's the difference between acting WP:BOLDLY and editing disruptively?

A: Disruptive editing is removing sourced content, adding content without sources or adding tags where unnecessary in a partisan, biased way, while bold is doing what conforms to the rules, boldly - fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc., ourselves -Baangla (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

For today this is a good answer. Some day soon you will understand this with more subtlety. BusterD (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• 4) Why are we helping you even though I blocked you earlier?

A: To rehabilitate me and make me a good editor and avoid future disruption/s.-Baangla (talk) 23:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

We only have about 120,000 active wikipedians. We are getting older. My granddaughter's generation doesn't spend as much time with text in school as I once did. My entire goal here to is to cultivate at least two more wikipedians I know I can trust. In addition to helping you, we'll help your mentor(s) as well. I'm helping you two because together we can choose to make the planet a better place. Today I'm here. I can't promise tomorrow. Please go read Wikipedia community. Thanks. Good answers, all. BusterD (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship and similar arrangements

In certain limited circumstances, formal mentorship and similar voluntary and involuntary arrangements, may be suitable to provide advice and support to people involved in disputes, or needing advice on how to work collaboratively on Wikipedia. The long-term aim of such arrangements should be for those involved to improve their conduct and work collaboratively without the need, or with a reduced need, for such advice. Such mentorships or similar arrangements may be agreed to as an alternative to more serious remedies, such as bans or paroles, or they may be an end result of the dispute resolution process itself. Users may voluntarily place themselves under such arrangements, or be placed under such arrangements by the community, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee. Any such formal arrangements should be recorded and documented in an appropriate place.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse#Mentorship and similar arrangements; Passed 10 to 0 at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

People learn in different modalities. Some best get material through reading, some pickup quicker with visuals, charts and descriptive images. I like things explained to me. Because there are so many possible ways of learning, it's useful to try several to see what works best for you. I like the mentor-mentee relationships. I choose to exercise my behavior based on models which which work for others. I look to editors I admire, usually people who have demonstrated trust in me.

While most of us try to keep our real-life identities quiet, it's not because we are afraid of outing (a serious concern especially for youngsters). I choose to use a pen-name, a Wikipedia-only name, to keep my focus on principles, not personalities (I think this is a twelve-step thing.) I'm not here for the glory or any merit badges; I'm here for the labor, the work. In this, I reveal my idealism, which I think a healthy approach (again, especially for youngsters).

So I have offered to connect you with other editors who may be able to assist you in learning to act in a manner expected of wikipedians. We will need to settle on terms. You will choose to refrain from editing rashly, and your mentor(s) will choose to assist you with day to day questions. If you make an error, any editor may talk to you about it. You will choose not to be suspicious or hostile. You will make an effort to listen to the merits of the complaint. During your mentorship you will not be alone; your mentor will be able to help you. I will remain available as a supervising mentor. You will learn to trust other editors; you will ask them politely for help. You will do kind things for other editors, but you will be especially careful to abide by the 5 Pillars you read yesterday. You will be cautious in talk spaces NOT to disparage/insult editors or their comments. Three of us will co-sign this section, to formalize our agreement. You, me and your mentor. When all three of us have signed, I will unblock you completely. Don't let us down. I can reinstate the block if necessary. Please don't put me there.

I cannot promise the community will go along with this 100%. There is the pending ANI discussion and the community is still considering how to deal with one previously misbehaving user. I will ask the discussion (if they agree on a topic ban) to postpone the application of that ban while the first phases of our mentorship agreement are in place. I cannot guarantee they will do so. So you may be prevented entirely from editing South Asian topics. This may be extremely challenging at first. I will contend that a working mentorship agreement will make any TBAN unnecessary. My proof will be in your daily behavior.

Your mentor and I are sticking our necks out for you in the hope there's a real wikipedian sitting at your keyboard. Demonstrate through your actions we are not wasting that effort. In return, you'll learn more rapidly than if you mentored yourself. Do you understand? BusterD (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I read every word you typed, twice. So, what about the agreement and lifting of sanctions?-Baangla (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

LordCollaboration, I think you are British, so we can discuss the UK or perhaps, football.-Baangla (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I am American, although have family in Indonesia as well. Mostly I’ve been reading about Indonesia and Ukraine (although the latter probably gets too close to your current XC restriction) recently, but I am okay with any topic you are interested in. Do you have any articles in particular that you are interested in improving? I will look around for some possible stubs that could use some work as well. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Great. The US is even better. I hope you can mentor me about Basketball and Baseball. The NBA should be a good place to start.-Baangla (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I think US basketball/baseball might be rough unless if we go very local; I don’t have any knowledge on the topic (or sports in general) and I suspect there aren’t many stubs in that area. I think focusing on something you are interested in that isn’t deeply covered here might be best, although I understand that might be difficult if the CT/SA restriction holds. When you mentioned football before, I was looking into football stubs in Indonesia, like Persid Jember. But I think ideally something you actually want to read about would be ideal, otherwise it probably won’t be very enjoyable doing the research on it. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

We can work on history of the US/history of the Democrats/history of the Republicans.-Baangla (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The Hawaiian Islands, especially Lanai are also interesting.-Baangla (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I happened to read this a couple of days ago.-Baangla (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Do you suggest I ask LordCollaboration if an edit is fine before I actually edit the article?-Baangla (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Lanai and its subtopics might be good to give a swing at. If we can’t find anything to add, we can switch to a different topic. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Let's stay away from any contentious topics, okay? BusterD (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll let the two of you work out your own routine. I may have something to say. Mostly, I'll want you to impress me with good and responsive behaviors. BusterD (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Can I ask you if an edit is fine before I actually edit any article (that will mean you have to check this Talk page of mine frequently)?-Baangla (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course. You can ping me anytime and I will get a notification. I also have your page on my watchlist now and we will be collaborating a lot, so I should see anything quickly. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Mentorship agreement

• We the undersigned accounts, User:BusterD, User:LordCollaboration, and User:Baangla make this statement: we will commence a mentorship agreement today between LordCollaboration (the mentor) and Baangla (the mentee). Baangla & LordCollaboration will both agree to stay out of disputes to the best of their ability. Baangla, I'm going to ask you as part of this agreement to a voluntary 1RR restriction, that is, one revert per article (or talk page) per day. If any topic bans are applied to Baangla's account, they will obey them without question and not request ban removal for six months. As supervising mentor, I take responsibility for any damage to the pedia for any misbehavior of the three of us. Signing below will have the effect of committing to the agreement.
  • BusterD (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Agreed.-Baangla (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Agreed LordCollaboration (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Being right isn't enough

Violations of Wikipedia's behavioral expectations are not excused on the grounds that the editor who violated those expectations has the correct position on an underlying substantive dispute or the interpretation of policies and guidelines within those disputes. Those expectations apply universally to all editors, and violations of those expectations are harmful to the functioning of the project, irrespective of the merits of an underlying substantive dispute.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute#Being right isn't enough, Passed 11 to 0 at 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

New wikipedians should focus on page content, not behavior (except for their own). We utilize several strategies in search of page improvement, but one successful model is WP:Bold, revert, discuss. Strangely, being a good wikipedian includes disagreeing with lots of people all the time. Disagreement is the normal state. Folks that have been around for a while have more competence in NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY. Don't get me wrong, I don't love being corrected, but I do appreciate it when somebody tells me my pants are down. Someone who points that out to me is an ally, not the fashion police.

What should a proper wikipedian do when they are accused of being wrong? First, listen to the feedback. Feedback is never about the user, it is about the assertion. The assertion may have merit, or be only partially correct. Even if the feedback seems inappropriate, assume the good faith of the commenter's assertion.

Don't personalize; it's a waste of effort. Focus on the argument, the position, the sources, the pillars, policies and guidelines, but don't attempt to be a rules lawyer. Don't concern yourself with others' behavior at all. Just attempt to make a cogent argument. Wikipedians are smart. They can draw their own conclusions. BusterD (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You are unblocked. Do not climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. That's an order. BusterD (talk) 15:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!-Baangla (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

You are welcome! Go forth and do good. BusterD (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Clarifications

@LordCollaboration: Can I ping FieldMarine, Ggonnemm, AlsoWukai, Kwamikagami, Jeffrey34555, Robertsky, Gowser, Professor Penguino, Smallangryplanet and Quantling on the Talk pages of the Kauai and Lanai articles to add an audio pronunciation for all the Hawaiian Islands?-Baangla (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean an audio file for the pronunciations? And do you have it and want to add it or would you be asking them to do it? I would avoid pinging for the latter personally.

I was thinking it might be good to find reliable sources and issues in the articles (grammatical issues, outdated information, etc.) and improving them. For example, on Lanai, I noticed Ellison’s managing company (Pūlama Lāna’i) is never mentioned, despite being in a lot of reliable sources; that might be worth adding. Here is a recent article I read. https://alohastatedaily.com/2025/06/11/a-new-bowling-alley-more-workforce-housing-planned-for-lanai/ What do you think? LordCollaboration (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Is that an opinion piece or a citable reliable source?-Baangla (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That is citable LordCollaboration (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

So, can I add this, According to a local Lāna‘i islander, the island, which was once a fully dedicated pineapple plantation, now has two hotels, but as people drive through town, many things still look the same as they did when he was growing up—children walking to school, neighbors watching out for one another and so on.?-Baangla (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t add anything until we have more sources. Wikipedia also requires things to be given due weight; one person’s opinion wouldn’t qualify there, even if the source quoting them is reliable. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay. In the, "Houses" section of Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives, can I add, The houses are supposedly haunted.^[1]?-Baangla (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Baangla (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s a good one. I would reword it (the current wording implies it is plausible that they are actually haunted), but you can definitely include the myth. Maybe “according to urban legend”? LordCollaboration (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't say, "urban legend." Is there anything wrong in adding, "supposedly"?-Baangla (talk) 18:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe “local lore” instead, as the writer of that article is a folklore writer. You can add other sources too, like https://moonmausoleum.com/the-haunted-hawaiian-mission-houses-historic-site/ LordCollaboration (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

To the Michael Jackson article, I wanna add‍, "His ghost has been spotted outside his mansion.^[2]"-Baangla (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC) Baangla (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Definitely do not add that in Wikivoice. See: Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY Even if the source is reliable (I don’t think the Mirror is?), we can’t add extraordinary claims like that. And it has to be taken with context; a folklore writer writing that a house is haunted is implicitly doing so under the implication that it is folklore, not reality. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

So, can the sentence be, "His ghost has supposedly been spotted outside his mansion.^[3][4][5]"-Baangla (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

No, not without establishing that it is due, particularly for an article like that. Multiple good reliable sources talking about it. Also, the reason I am not a fan of “supposedly” is because it implies plausibility to me; I would always put “according to urban legend” or similar language. But it is common in other articles, so seems to just be a personal preference for me. Not a requirement. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

In any case, I think we should stick to less major articles for now. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Can I add this to the Lanai article: Ellison is rich and influential, much like a contemporary American King on Lāna'i. A provision in his rental agreement stipulates that anyone who loses a job with his company may also be evicted from their home, and many people both work for and rent from him; the five year lease terms of small businesses have also been reduced to thirty days.^[6][7]-Baangla (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Bloomberg is mentioned as a reliable source here, that is, at WP:RSPS.-Baangla (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I would make a few changes. Bloomberg is reliable, but “much like a contemporary American King” is still a POV and not neutral wording for Wikipedia. For something like that, adding “has been described as” would be better. For the small businesses, it says “some” had five-year leases and that now thirty-day are the norm. I would reword or remove that part.

Additionally, the Sutherlin piece should be cut; it is a short piece promoting the Alexander article (and just copies the same sentence word-for-word), so it’s not an additional source for the claim. I’ve seen that a lot, with articles republishing other articles (sometimes from another source like AP or from themselves), and then being used as multiple sources by us. LordCollaboration (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

So, can I add, Ellison is rich and influential and described as a contemporary American King on Lāna'i. A provision in his rental agreement stipulates that anyone who loses a job with his company may also be evicted from their home, and many people both work for and rent from him; additionally, small enterprises' five-year lease agreements have been shortened to a norm of thirty days. (and skip the article by Sutherlin)?-Baangla (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, Lanai's representative on the regional Maui County Council, Gabe Johnson, believes that the government has limited authority over public infrastructure. or maybe According to Lanai's representative on the regional Maui County Council, Gabe Johnson, the government has limited authority over public infrastructure., using the same source.-Baangla (talk) 10:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I would include the “has been” before “described”; we only have one source describing him that way. Also, minor, but “king” shouldn’t be capitalized. For the leases, I’m still not sure that follows the source; it implies businesses have had their leases reduced, but the source just says the norm is now thirty days (after renewal, presumably). What do you think about this?: “small enterprises’ lease agreements, which could be as high as five-years previously, are now usually thirty days.”

Your other addition is good. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Fine, can I go ahead and add what you say?-Baangla (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. As long as you are adding content in good faith and with the project’s goals in mind (on non-contentious topics), you don’t need to ask me for permission. Just keep me in the loop, and ask any and all questions you may have, and I will be keeping a look as well. Edits can always be made after the fact if they need improvement. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Please let me know what tag teaming means, as per WP:TAGTEAM-Baangla (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• @BusterD: Nobody has topic banned me, probably because I mentioned at ANI that I am being mentored, so can I edit India related topics also?-Baangla (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  The topic ban has not been applied, but you are no longer extended confirmed, which means if you edit in contentious areas, you may be blocked. So no. You should avoid editing in all contentious topics. BusterD (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  @BusterD: I am aware of the WP:ECR restriction and will avoid ECP articles but what about other articles related to India?-Baangla (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  It's entirely likely you'll end up with a topic ban WP:CTOP/SA. Your apparent eagerness to edit the subject matter will not impress !voters above. I advise you to remain away from any topics which might violate the not-quite-yet-applied topic ban. BusterD (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Basically working with another editor to bypass the normal process. For example, Wikipedia has the three revert rule; but you could work with another editor so you could effectively turn that into a six revert rule (both reverting three times). This is another case (much like gaming) where the rule isn’t that precise, it’s more about the idea that collaboration should be working together for the project (remember the Pillars), not working together to disrupt the project. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

This morning I've dropped a few recent source bombs from newspapers.com which are all Honolulu Star-Advertiser, perhaps the best local newspaper you'll find. I added brief sentences which anchored the citation. But read the clippings, they are rich with detail. LordCollaboration, you may be able to find other sources using The Wikipedia Library or just using search engines. Go grab a bunch of cites, new and old, then use them to better populate the page. You've got lots to work with. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Where have you mentioned them? I would like to use them - please see LordCollaboration's User talk page for my questions.-Baangla (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Look at the last three contributions to the Hawaiian page you were editing. Click on the links. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added a WP:Reflist to the bottom of this thread to hold your citations. BusterD (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks a lot.-Baangla (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Can I add this to the History section of the article on Hawaiian Islands - The United States annexed Hawaii, previously ruled by a female monarch, purportedly for its own benefit, in the late 19th century. The U.S. Navy keeps the smallest of the eight main islands off-limits and it was only used for target practice until recently.^[8]?-Baangla (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

It should be integrated into the current paragraph on the annexation, otherwise some information will be repeated; but yes, the general text seems fine. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Nice work. I just removed the one sentence added in History of Hawaii because it was repetitive. And good find on the typo. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Can I add this citation to this first sentence in the article on Kahuna, .....expert in any field.^[9] (formatted and ready to add)? It is citationless right now.-Baangla (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd also like to add this, The term means “keeper of hidden knowledge”, literally. People who came from outside Hawaii distorted and stereotyped, “kahuna” as a witch or wizard. using the same source.-Baangla (talk) 10:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that is good for the background section as well. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I would put that after “or any other skill or knowledge area” in the background section. Normally the lead doesn’t necessarily need citations because it should be a summary of the article below; but in this case, that part below is missing a citation, so it would have been fine. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Please help me paraphrase this (I have already formatted the reliable source in a citable form):}}

The word Kahuna is derived from Kahu, which means caretaker. Also, huna means secret; so together, a Kahuna was the keeper or caretaker of secret or sacred knowledge. In other words, a Kahuna was a professional expert of a given field of knowledge and pracce. They were much like the guild masters of Medieval Europe, or indeed the Freemasons, in that their expertise was kept away from the prying eyes of the general public and thus was kept secret.

The following are some of the classes of Kahuna as pracsed in pre-contact Hawaii:

Kahuna po’o or Kahuna nui High priest

Kahuna kaula Prophet

Kahuna wehe wehe Dream interpreter

Kahuna Kilo kilo Reader of skies and omens

Kahuna kalai Carving expert

Kahuna kalai ki’i Sculptor

Kahuna kalai wa’a Canoe maker

Kahuna hale kukulu House builder

Kahuna kumu hula Leader of a hula halau ( hula group )

Kahuna haku mele ula Makers of chants and music

Kahuna ho’okele Navigator

Kahuna kela moku Expert seaman

Kahuna ‘upena hana Expert fishnet maker

Kahuna lawai’a kolau Expert at catching fish with a net

Kahuna wanana ikeauokamanawa Reader of weather signs

Kahuna lawai’amanu Expert bird catcher

Kahuna ka’a kaua War strategist

Kahuna papa po’o Leader of the warriors

Kahuna lawelawe iwi Cares for the bones of the dead

Kahuna kukei’i wana’ao Expert story teller

Kahuna hui Led funcons and ceremonies for Ali’i

In fact, there were 40 kinds of craſt making Kahuna alone! The power and social posion of the Kahuna, at least those involved in religious pracces, largely ended when the Kingdom of Hawaii officially abandoned the ancient religion in 1819. This was done under the reign of Liholiho ( Kamehameha II ) under pressure from his key advisors, including his Kahuna nui.^[10]-Baangla (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I would put that after your previous sentence (“The term, “kahuna" means “keeper of hidden knowledge”, literally.”). As for wording, I would probably do something like: “It is derived from the word “kahu”, meaning “caretaker”, and “huna”, meaning “secret”. The secrecy over their knowledge has been described as being similar to the Freemasons and the guild masters of medieval Europe.” But you can paraphrase it as you like. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn’t list the rest out (it already mentions there are a lot in the article, probably unnecessary and too much), but you can also add it as a source for the current part which has a [citation needed] note right now: “A craft kahuna, such as the kālai waʻa is an expert canoe maker, and a hoʻokele is an expert navigator.[citation needed]” LordCollaboration (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Where in the Kahuna article can I add this,

Kamehameha I believed that Christianity may bring mana or heavenly power to revitalise the Hawaiian community.^[11]

?-Baangla (talk) 06:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Whrre can I add this, Ka'ahumanu formally declared Christianity to be the new state religion with a Sabbath on December 21, 1823.^[12] (probably in the last paragraph of the, "Legal status" section)?-Baangla (talk) 06:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Then this, Lili'uokalani wrote, "as the American residents became wealthy, their greed, their greed and their love of power proportionately increased."^[13]?-Baangla (talk) 06:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Can I add, A 2016 state government estimate states that only 18,000 residents of the state claim to speak Hawaiian at home.^[14] to the Hawaiian language article?-Baangla (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, in the last paragraph of the “1949 to present” section. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

This would be off-topic for the article. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it could go in that section. Although it seems strange; the article currently says she “was converted to Christianity in 1825”. Did she make Christianity the state religion before converting, or are one of these sources wrong on the date? Worth looking into first. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Upon further research, seems basically correct. Required strict observance of the Sabbath in 1823, professed belief in 1824, and was baptized in 1825. The only issue is that “formally” making it the state religion; is requiring observance of the Sabbath really that? Other sources give a different date (like when it was added to their constitution). So a rewording might be good. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think that belongs in the Kahuna article, would be off-topic. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

It can go in the article on Kamehameha I though. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Where in the Lili'uokalani article can I add this: After the death of Liliuokalani, the people of Hawaii, considering her as an embodiment of a Hawaiian ali'i consoled themselves, "There will always be a Hawaii as long as there is aloha and forgiveness."^[15]-Baangla (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

To the Aloha article, I'd like to add a section, "In popular culture" and add this in that section, Aloha (2015 film) is an American romantic comedy based on this term.-Baangla (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that is fine. Maybe we can find more stuff to fill that out as well. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi all, FYI @Baangla wrote "named with this term" diff, which isn't grammatically correct nor an improvement over the original "based on..." so I reverted it. After I did that I thought I'd best come here to see what was agreed originally & noticed it was different. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

BTW Your other two were fine, just be careful since you've got extra attention on you thanks to the ANI thread :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I will be more careful.-Baangla (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Probably Legacy, but I would say “some Hawaiians”, not, “the people of Hawaii”. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Must I ask my mentors if an edit is acceptable before I make the edit or can I make some which need just common sense?-Baangla (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

My position is the latter, as long as it’s not a contentious topic. I think it’s pretty clear to everyone you are being constructive now; if there are any issues, we can take care of it after (or someone else will revert it). I will continue to closely monitor and discuss with you, and you should continue asking me any questions you may have, but I don’t think you need to be restricted that much. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, I noticed on the Death of Michael Jackson talk page you made an edit request a few days ago to add that comment we discussed earlier. I am curious, if the page wasn’t protected, would you have just added it directly? LordCollaboration (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No way. I am trying to be careful.-Baangla (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks.

On your Aloha websites, I added some sources for the ones that don’t have their own page to show that they are DUE. I eliminated a few that I didn’t see mentioned anywhere reliable; you can add them back though if you can find them written about in a reliable source. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I am happy with what you have done. Thanks!-Baangla (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Please help paraphrase this, mentioning aloha, Ho'oponopono and Victoria Shook and let me know where in the Aloha and Ho'oponopono articles I can add it:-

The Essence of Ho'oponopono

One of my personal interests in this study was to see if there was any agreement on what constituted the core or essence of ho'oponopопо, despite the variations. I cannot say I found a phrase or expression that summed up this matter. I did learn that the expression of anything "essen-tial" is always very personal and couched in words and gestures that have individual meanings. In one of the more frivolous moments of an inter-view I asked Paul Ellis to define "spiritual," since it occurred to me that I had assumed that I shared a similar meaning with him and the others. After Paul gave me an incredulous look and laugh he paraphrased a story reportedly about Louis Armstrong, the legendary jazz musician. "You know Louis was asked, 'What is jazz?' and he replied, 'If you gotta' ask about it, you ain't got it." Jazz, spirituality, and the essence of ho'opono-pono all defy uniform characterization. Yet most people can recognize a quality-the real thing-when it is there.

A few of the leaders in the study shared personal expressions of the essence of ho'oponopono. I hope the reader will be able to catch glim-mers of the essence of ho'oponopono in these words and draw his or her own conclusions.

Jean Baker stated, "The essence of ho'oponopono, I think, is aloha. That has to be there. And I guess that's manifested in a willingness to contribute some kind of commitment." For Joseph Whitney, the key was "trust" and for Keola Espiritu it was "communication."

Kalau Souza summed up her feelings about ho'oponopono by saying, "I think the values Hawaiians have the sincerity, the commitment to family, commitment to the group-these are all very essential to the whole thing."^[16]

-Baangla (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

In the citation mentioned above, should the page numbers be mentioned as, 99, 100, 99-100 or 99 and 100?-Baangla (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This can be used as reliable source for mentioning Victoria Shook and her book.-Baangla (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I, essentially, want to mention Ho'oponopono (with a link) on the Aloha article.-Baangla (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

If that went over your head, please help paraphrase this, In this mindfulness exercise, you will learn about the pillars of ho’oponopono, including the true meaning of the Hawaiian word 'aloha'. Not just a greeting, this word literally means 'the breath of life' and refers to unconditional love that is free of prejudice or discrimination.^[17]-Baangla (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Please also let me know where in the articles about Ho'oponopono and Aloha I can add them -Baangla (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Please comment about both the sources mentioned above.-Baangla (talk) 05:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

How to paraphrase and add this:-

At a two day gathering at the University of Hawai'i, West Oahu campus that explored Ho'oponopono, in sessions and group discussions, it was remarked, "We are healing our collective with aloha languaging and pono behavior."^[18]

? Can it be added to both the Aloha and Ho'oponopono articles?-Baangla (talk) 07:01, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Please help paraphrase this and tell me if it can be added to both articles (and please specify where):

“Aloha was the main key,” Aunty Aloha says, “and so was pule [prayer]. You pule when you go to sleep, you pule when you wake up, you pule when you eat, you pule when you get in trouble. It’s all about connection with ke Akua [God, Higher Power].” Mom and dad Ahuna also taught the values of aloha kekahi i kekahi (love for oneself and for all), kōkua (helping each other), kuleana (understanding family and community responsibility), ha‘aha‘a (humbleness), mālama (caring), hō‘ihi (respect for self and others). “We didn’t know that our meetings were ho‘oponopono,” she says.^[19]

-Baangla (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help. I think this mentorship is the best thing that happened for me (or else I would have been reverted and wouldn't have known how to correct it).-Baangla (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Baangla; sorry, was asleep.

For page citations, “pp. 99-100” is correct.

On hoʻoponopono, I think you can definitely add something like: “Many consider the spirit of aloha to be central to the practice of hoʻoponopono.” using SBS Audio, the Victoria Shook book, and the Ke Ola Magazine article. After that, you can go in more detail; for example, “At a University of Hawai‘i–West O‘ahu event exploring hoʻoponopono, Dr. Manu Aluli Meyer remarked that, “We are healing our collective with aloha languaging”.”, using the University of Hawai‘i–West O‘ahu link. I would put it in the “Ritual” section, probably at the end.

For the Aloha article, I would keep it shorter, since the main part of these sources is hoʻoponopono. Maybe just: “Aloha is also considered central to the traditional Hawaiian practice of hoʻoponopono” (using same sources). I would put it at the end of the paragraph in the first section, “Another way to interpret aloha is as an energy exchange — the giving and receiving of positive energy is the spirit of aloha.” LordCollaboration (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand, "your sleep time". Thanks!-Baangla (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD and LordCollaboration: I am not yet topic banned, so can I add this to the article on Louise Hay: Hay started practicing Religious Science in the early 1970s, guiding people in vocal "affirmations" intended to heal their ailments. She quickly progressed beyond Religious Science, studying Transcendental Meditation with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi at his university in Fairfield, Iowa, after becoming well-known as a workshop leader.^[20]?-Baangla (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh! A similar sentence has been added already but suppose it wasn't, could I have added it?-Baangla (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

The source is broken, but the content itself seems fine. I don’t understand how this would violate the topic ban though (even if it were in place), I thought that was only on South Asia? LordCollaboration (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

It mentions Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, a person of Indian origin which is why I felt it was better to ask you both.-Baangla (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I don’t know how strict topic bans are, so I would default to whatever BusterD responds. But from my own experience, when I was accused of “gaming”, I added a source for a claim in an article about an event in the early 2000s. An admin told me that this would violate the Russo-Ukrainian war topic restriction because the source talked about the war (as well as the event I used it for). So I suspect it would be a violation, unfortunately. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I would regard it as a violation in search of justification. BusterD (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Is this a reliable source for wikipedia?-Baangla (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

This text, If a distinction is to be made between divination and fortune-telling, divination has a more formal or ritualistic element and often contains a more social character, usually in a religious context, as seen in traditional African medicine. Fortune-telling, on the other hand, is a more everyday practice for personal purposes. Particular divination methods vary by culture and religion. is unsourced in the article about divination and that can be used if you say that it's a reliable source.-Baangla (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No, I don’t think so. It looks like anyone can edit if they sign up. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I confirmed. From their website: “Definitions.net provides the opportunity for everyone to contribute. You will also have the option to set up a personal editor page of your own on the Definitions.net editors page.”

So not a reliable source for Wikipedia. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

What about this or this?-Baangla (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that is a reliable source (the eajournals one; the other one doesn’t open for me). LordCollaboration (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem, one is enough. Thanks!-Baangla (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Of course! So something to consider on sources and due weight, in a simplified way: At the high end of the spectrum for reliable sources are academic articles, that are peer-reviewed in respected journals. So that source you just cited: “Manuscripts submitted to this journal are subject to a peer review process, which involves an international panel of researchers who are experts in relevant fields.” At the lower end are things like self-published blogs. These are not reliable, could have conflicts of interest, etc. For example, on those Aloha websites; I could make a website tomorrow, name it LordCollaborationAloha, and insert it into the Wikipedia article to get views (and on there, I could be selling products, pushing random viewpoints I want to promote, etc.) … This would obviously be giving way too much weight to the relevance of my website. And the way we determine whether it is reliable/has weight is on other reliable sources. If Reuters, academic journals, etc. are positively citing my website, that suggests it is reliable; and if they are writing about it, that suggests it does have weight. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:DUE, and for a list of sources that are considered reliable/not reliable (incomplete, but good to check for common sites): Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources LordCollaboration (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Baangla (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: Where in the article about Cancer treatment can I add this: For more successful early detection and focused preventative measures, it is essential to comprehend the underlying reasons. Major research organisations around the world have made early-onset cancer a high priority in response to this demand, especially after younger adults were showing signs and symptoms of Cancer.^[21]?-Baangla (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the end of the lead (after “There are many types of cancer, and many of these can be successfully treated if detected early enough.”)? Also, the second “Cancer” in your paragraph should not be capitalized. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I put it in the "Research" section.-Baangla (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: In the article about Divination, the sentence, In Japan, divination methods include Futomani from the Shinto tradition. is unsourced. Can I cite this as a reliable source for it?-Baangla (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

As it is a blog, no, I don’t think it would be considered a reliable source. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way, when making grammar changes/adding commas, always consider if it changes the meaning. One that I think was originally correct: “Tezcatlipoca was the patron of sorcerers and practitioners of magic”. This seems to be saying that he was the patron of both “sorcerers” and “practitioners of magic”. Your change to “Tezcatlipoca was the patron of sorcerers and a practitioner of magic” makes it sound like Tezcatlipoca was a practitioner of magic and the patron of sorcerers, which I do not think was the intended wording, so I reverted it back.

(To be clear, like 90% of your grammar changes are great, and you are doing a really good job.) LordCollaboration (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Proof reading is allowed, isn't it?-Baangla (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, and, as said, 90% of your proofreading is great; just wanted to let you know about a case I saw that I think was incorrect. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: When I search Google and then click on "books", I get a search result showing the text, To make sure the answer is definitely a yes, the blocks must fall in a “yes” position three times in a row, with a certain Tom Kane as the author but I can't see the preview, can I still add it to the article about Divination where I see that sentence?-Baangla (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure. Normally I wouldn’t add anything without having access to the book so I have the full context. But it has no source at all right now, so perhaps good to point people to a source. LordCollaboration (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will skip citing it.-Baangla (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ug, I just realized that either Wikipedia plagiarized that BEZA blog, or the BEZA blog copied from Wikipedia. The text is exactly the same. I will need to do a look, but we may need to cut the entire section on Taiwan (and potentially elsewhere too). LordCollaboration (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Please just paraphrase it. Let us not remove anything.-Baangla (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

In cases of plagiarism, it should be removed/reverted immediately, and then re-added when properly paraphrased with a citation to the place it came from. We do not want copy right violations. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, fortunately, they copied from Wikipedia. A good example of why not to source from blogs though, much more likely to have a circular effect (someone adds something to Wikipedia without a source, a blog copies it, and then we cite the blog!). LordCollaboration (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Self-correction is part of the process

Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their conduct is held to a high standard as a result of this trust. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/AlisonW#Administrators, Passed 11 to 0 at 17:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedians mis-educate when we minimize the utility of error. Nobody is perfect, and creating the world's most important reference volume is bound to involve occasional good-faith errors. Disputes about sourcing and due weight are sometimes worth having. Occasional errors in judgement are regrettable but inevitable. Allowing wikipedians their freedom to disagree sometimes provides a platform towards a better understanding of the subject matter, and therefore a fuller communication of such material.

Newer editors should continue to focus on content, not other users' behaviors. It is inevitable that one user recognize a path forward and another user select an alternate approach. If two editors are in disagreement towards a higher understanding, their arguments might each have merit; in your behavior, lean towards that assumption. Being open to an alternative is the superior approach.

In content then, be bold in disagreement. Bring sources to pagespace. In talkpage discussions, link pillars, policies and guidelines. Present sources for discussion. Argue loudly on talk, but assume others have a mature and nuanced understanding of how Wikipedia works. For best results, always be open to learning something new about yourself. BusterD (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

ANI recommendation

Hi Baangla,

I strongly recommend not commenting on the ANI thread again unless if you are asked a question. Let your edits and behavior here speak for themselves. I mostly agreed with you on the underlying issue, but we made our arguments, the consensus on your behavior went the other way (and the discussion on the outcome is ongoing), and it is time to move on (see BusterD’s post several days ago: Being right isn't enough). It is not constructive to continue beating the dead horse; people have read your requests not to be topic blocked and the reasons why, more comments are just wasting time (and volunteer time is Wikipedia’s most valuable resource). This will not be the only time you “lose” a discussion on Wikipedia, whether it be on a policy issue or a content one, but accepting consensus (not necessarily agreeing, but moving on) is an important part of Wikipedia. I realize this is more personal than a basic content disagreement, and it is difficult to just move on, but the overall project and community are most important.

All the best. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I endorse the above suggestion. Your voice in that forum is actively unhelpful to your cause at this time. BusterD (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks (to both of you)!-Baangla (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Applying to get my extended confirmed protected edit status back

@LordCollaboration: I have made some 500 edits after my ECP editor rights were revoked as per WP:ECR after someone dragged me to ANI. Do you think I can apply to get this restriction lifted now?-Baangla (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend against and instead waiting a month past when we made our mentorship agreement; this will show a month of constructive editing.

Additionally, I would not mention edit counts when you do reapply. That is going to get people to scrutinize every edit to see if you “gamed” to get the number up, which is what brought you to ANI in the first place.

On that note: I think you need to read up on when commas are necessary/not necessary (see, for example, here: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/comma/, particularly the “Commas with appositives” section). There are a number of recent cases where the commas added are unnecessary or even detrimental. For some examples: People will see these no differently than the macrons; questionable edits to boost edit count.

I would recommend not thinking about edit counts at all. Just focus on being constructive, and things will all work out. When you do reapply, we can include diffs to a lot of the great work you put in, both big and small. There are a lot of mistakes you fixed as well as a few articles that are noticeably significantly improved thanks to your edits, and in a few weeks, no doubt that will be even clearer. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Also suggest removing all of these recent comma changes until you have a better understanding of their usage. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

As per https://prowritingaid.com/grammar/1008079/Should-I-use-a-comma-before-an-opening-quotation-mark any quote/s needs a comma before it, so I believe only the commas' where a quotation mark is not opened needs to be corrected which I will do immediately, everywhere. https://www.grammarly.com/blog/punctuation-capitalization/quotation-within-quotation/ and https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365-life-hacks/writing/quotation-mark-rules give examples of the same (using a comma before a quotation mark is opened).-Baangla (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Done.-Baangla (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

In the grammarly webpage you posted a link to above, please read the text under the section, "Commas between direct quotes and attributive tags". It says that a comma should precede a direct quote.-Baangla (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried to fix a couple of your edits and didn't realise you'd already done that (the pages didn't refresh on my phone properly) - please ignore any reverts you see from me, apologies. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet: Please self revert it or else someone will accuse me of indulging in an edit war, even if I make just one revert (that too at ANI)!-Baangla (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I've made sure there's a clear edit history on each page that I've made an error & left this message here for anyone who is reviewing your history they're fully aware of what happened. Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

OK, thanks!-Baangla (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Quotes do not always need a quotation mark beforehand. As per your link: “When you include quoted material or dialogue in a sentence then you should precede it with a comma unless it fits into the flow of the sentence seamlessly, e.g. The President said that there is ‘no smoking gun’ to be found.

In these cases, the sentence would be syntactically correct without the quotation marks, and you are just using the quotation marks to show that the quote is a direct quote. Often, in this scenario, the quote will be preceded by ‘that’, e.g. He said that ‘the country will continue to grow.’” LordCollaboration (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I think this rule is followed only in AmE but I will avoid adding a comma to such text from now.-Baangla (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to revert to the old version and then just add your new changes in manually. The comma changes are extensive and difficult to manually correct them all. Specifically, reverting to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tarot_card_reading&oldid=1318472358 LordCollaboration (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have done so at Automatic Writing now, where you also mostly made comma changes. Basically, just edit the old version with the changes you actually want. LordCollaboration (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

It is pretty late in the night here, now. I will do it tomorrow.-Baangla (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I have done it for you now. Thanks. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I just woke up to answer nature's call and I happened to see your response. Thanks a lot for everything!-Baangla (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, I appreciate your recent edits, but please stop with the comma changes. I think you still do not have a good enough understanding of when they are needed or not, so it is better to just leave them be. LordCollaboration (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fine but is there any problem with my other edits?-Baangla (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

No, not that I have seen. I haven’t taken a look at everything yet, but it looks great and constructive. Thanks! LordCollaboration (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Although one issue you should keep in mind is due weight (see WP:BALASP). The Frank VanderSloot section at Kauai, for example, is too much (in my opinion) if he just owns a famous house there; and the part about suing a former ranch manager for stealing cows is certainly too much. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed.-Baangla (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits

Greetings.

I'm not one of those people who complain but I just wanted to let out a gentle reminder that the number of edits do not matter. I don't consider myself experienced in that regard but instead of making a chain of edits (around 15 in one of the articles you edited), it would be beneficial to edit once but with all the edits you need changed. Try to get approval from the talk page if possible. Also, it would be best to avoid controversial topics (I'll leave what is controversial and what is not to you) as more experienced editors with sufficient knowledge about the article and the site usually do better in that regard.

Wishing you a successful editing journey going forward! Malayalee from India (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I was actually proof reading those articles.-Baangla (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent edits

Edits like these are great and very constructive. Thanks for listening! LordCollaboration (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

A lesson not based on policy

When I was in middle school I attended a matinee at a community theater with my friend Wes. It was a very funny play and afterwards we stayed and helped strike the set, move props back to storage, disassemble the flats and sweep and mop the bare thrust stage. Then everyone including the cast met in the greenroom and had a little celebration. My friend and I felt an accepted part of the production, as if we'd been working backstage the entire run. We were invited back to volunteer for the next show, a dazzling musical about Jacques Brel. The theater complex was a place of magic, with the larger thrust for big productions, a more intimate arena stage for smaller ones, and a large rehearsal complex for auditions and study.

We painted flats, we used skills recently learned in woodshop class, we swept the floor a lot. We generally made ourselves useful.

One day Wes and I had some extra time. We were goofing around in the arena house, and we came across the soda dispenser. Wes being the mischievous type, he started pressing the various levers and enjoying watching the soda come out, not drinking any. I joined in, generally wasting money and making a mess.

The technical director, Robert, walked up behind us and in a trained theatrical voice boomed: "Gentlemen!" We were busted. We froze. "Come here!" he commanded. We respected the guy but were suddenly overawed by Robert's unexpected vocal power. "Why are you here?" he demanded, "Why are you here?" They were ambiguous questions but they required of us much. Why were we in the concession area? Why were we in the arena instead of returning to the shop? Why was I at the theater complex anyway, besides enjoying time working backstage and hanging with my friend, I asked myself. It seemed like I had to make a choice and make it at that exact moment.

"I'm here to volunteer," I said.

"Volunteering doesn't mean doing whatever you want," Robert commented. "If you are here, you follow MY rules. If you can't, then you can go home. We are serving theater, and we aren't your babysitters."

I felt bad. I really liked being a part of that situation and wanted to continue. I wanted to serve "theater." It seemed so lofty. That the possibility might be taken from me was something I had never considered.

The next day Wes didn't show up, but I went to the theater anyway. I just went to work. Did what I was told. Never left.

I learned to hang and adjust lighting instruments, how the various connectors made connections reliable, how to patch the right circuits and test them, how to warm the board and work inside the booth during the show, how to operate the follow spot. I learned how to do technical theater work in a way that was largely invisible. Eventually Robert moved on to another company and there was new TD; I didn't like the new fellow as much but I had already learned my lesson. I ended up doing five summers of stock theater before graduating with my degree. Sixty bucks a week for eleven weeks. Getting PAID to do what I would do for free. Changed my life.

Years later I learned Robert had taken his own life. I might have asked myself, "Why was HE here?"

But I knew.

BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, why are you editing English Wikipedia? I feel we are babysitting. I think LordCollaboration has demonstrated their screen name means something more than a mere clever title. LordC's commitment to the mentorship is clear. They have impressed us. I think my Aunty Val has been quite kind to drop by and say words of encouragement. But Baangla, I don't think you've really stepped up into the mentorship so far. By my reading you appear to be wearing on the abundant patience of your mentor (and IMHO the community). I feel like you are not taking seriously those of us helping you. So far, the mentorship has prevented you from acting rashly, but you are not taking steps required to learn to do things for yourself. WP:Competence is required. Please stop asking LordC (or anybody else) for out-of-context permission to utilize a source. Such questions are impossible to answer perfectly. Look at WP:Edit request to see how you might better understand what is involved in asking such vague questions. BusterD (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I believe I have understood what your Aunt Val is conveying. Thanks!-Baangla (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I consider the above unresponsive to my question. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I am trying my best.-Baangla (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) @Baangla, I am sorry if this feels like another editor adding to the criticism, but if you genuinely believe that this is you trying your best, I do wonder whether the English-language Wikipedia is the best project for you at this time. You replied to your mentor saying that you have an advanced level of English. It's true that your English is technically proficient, but collaborating with others requires some appreciation for conversational nuance that may not be easy to pick up from textbooks or test preparation. There are many examples on this talk page of you missing the point that BusterD or LordCollaboration have tried to get across, and this issue does seem to be reflected in your article edits as well as in your responses to your mentors. You have been advised to take some time out from Wikipedia and I think we need to specify that pausing for a few days, not just a few hours, would give you more time to carefully read the policies and guidelines that have been pointed out to you. Don't read them quickly; read them slowly (and maybe read them more than once) and really think about what they mean and why they have been given to you to read. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:31, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Please listen to the advice given here

Baangla, I am concerned that you cannot follow restrictions or listen to advice. Some recent examples:

After being told on ANI on October 29 that your comma-additions were wrong and you should not be adding these kinds of edits, you said you had removed every comma that did not precede a quotation mark and agreed to avoid making comma additions before quotation marks as well.. You then added yet another incorrect comma two days later. I then asked you explicitly to stop making comma changes, which you agreed to. I see now that you have continued to add commas to articles (although I didn’t see any that were detrimental at least).

On October 28, I asked you to avoid commenting on ANI unless asked a question (which BusterD echoed), and you agreed to this. You proceeded to comment on ANI several times the next day. When Toddy1 brought this up in the ANI thread, adding that this shows an “inability to take advice”, you responded to the thread *again*, saying that you and I “fixed everything”.

Most concerning to me: On October 23, you asked BusterD if you could edit on India-related topics, to which BusterD said absolutely not, noted your eagerness to edit in this area (also noted several times in the ANI thread), and advised you to “remain away from any topics which might violate the not-quite-yet-applied topic ban”. Later BusterD also warned you not to engage in violations in search of justification on India-related topics. I see now that yesterday you recommended Toddy1 restore your edits on an article about a town in India, which were among the very edits that got you in trouble in the first place. This seems like a pretty blatant attempt to indirectly edit in a topic-area that we asked you to avoid.

Finally, just a few hours ago, BusterD asked you to “Please stop asking LordC (or anybody else) for out-of-context permission to utilize a source”, in addition to very explicitly asking you a question (which I notice you did not answer). Less than two hours after responding to this comment, you did this *exact* same thing again.

If you can’t follow restrictions or explicit advice for a couple weeks (or even a couple days), particularly just after having been given a second chance after a block and being closely watched, nobody is going to trust you to follow a formal topic restriction. LordCollaboration (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I asked because it seemed reliable but was not "peer reviewed."-Baangla (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

That entirely misses the point. Again: “Look at WP:Edit request to see how you might better understand what is involved in asking such vague questions.”

The source might be reliable for some purposes and not for others. I can’t sufficiently answer that question without knowing precisely what you want to cite and where you want to cite it. LordCollaboration (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: I want to quote the quotation in that webpage that can be read under the section titled, "Queen Liliʻuokalani surrenders under this protest:" in the wikipedia article titled, "Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy" and paraphrase and add this: After the queens death, her cousin Princess Elizabeth Keka'aniau La'anui is the only survivor of the royal family members who were made Pre-emptive and eligible to the throne by Royal Decree and became the Head of the Royal House and "de jure" sovereign of the occupied Hawaiian Kingdom. to the article about Lili'uokalani.-Baangla (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the source is reliable for that purpose; it seems to be a notable claim which is justifiably mentioned in the article for Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau, but I don’t think we can say in Wikivoice that she became the de jure sovereign. It’s a POV from the descendants, which that website is apparently run by. Additionally, I don’t think that belongs in the first article (which is about the overthrow of the Kingdom, not succession claims decades later). Maybe with more sourcing for the Lili'uokalani article. LordCollaboration (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi again Baangla, I hope it's ok to chime in. On looking at your Talk page, I can see that you're asking a lot of questions but I'm not sure whether you're learning or understanding as much as you could after recieving so much support from your mentor. You seem to be relying very heavily on them, almost like a damage buffer.

I'd highly recommend that you take a bit of time out from editing to do background learning - read through different policy pages, essays, how-to pages etc. There a ton of important information, resources and tutorials on the Community section, including explanations of sourcing and how to use them correctly. Look at Good Articles - try to understand how they've been written and see how each claim has a reliable source.

You need to take the initiative to become a better editor, because your mentor can only take you so far - the rest is on you. This is just my personal advice as one editor to another, which I hope you take in the good spirit it's meant. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Topic ban

By consensus of the Wikipedia community, you are indefinitely topic-banned from the scope of WP:CT/SA. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Please explain what all I must avoid - the link I clicked above only says I am topic banned from subjects falling under the subtopic of social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties, related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal but I think I need to avoid more than that.-Baangla (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, it means that you are banned from: all pages related to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The terms of the topic ban (which I endorsed, btw) are broadly construed. If you think it possibly might be construed by others to be inside the topic ban, you should treat it as such. A reminder: I blocked your account indefinitely; I removed the block myself to explore this mentorship arrangement. Before now, I could re-block you at will. Now, under the topic ban, any editor can complain you're in violation, and if any admin agrees, you're blocked again. So now it's totally on you, Baangla. LordC can't protect you; I can't protect you. If you want to continue editing en.wiki, it is entirely on you to edit in such a way you stay out of trouble. BusterD (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I will ask LordCollaboration or you if I am not sure if something feels wrong. Please let me know if I can paraphrase and use the content of this source.-Baangla (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I will skip it as I read the whole text and found that it is unrelated to Hawaii.-Baangla (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Naroditsky

Baangla, I'm looking at your edit to Daniel Naroditsky. There was already a paragraph about the discovery of his body and how the police characterized his death. I'm curious what you thought was added or improved by your edit. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

My mentor asked and I replied above in the same section.-Baangla (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion which suggests you work on BLP articles, which has been pointed out to you as a contentious topic you should avoid editing. Don't get in the habit of saying your mentor approved your disappointing behavior. BusterD (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: Are you saying that I should avoid Biographies of Living People? What about Biographies of dead people, say for example, Marilyn Monroe, George Michael or Michael Jackson? More importantly for me, should Naroditsky be considered a Living Person because he died recently?-Baangla (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

OK, I went and read the topics listed at WP:CTOP - do you want me to avoid all those or just topics related to South Asia?-Baangla (talk) 11:09, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

All of those please. Also, Biographies of dead people are generally fine as long as they haven’t just passed away recently. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead LordCollaboration (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not ask what you thought it added/improved, I just told you it should be removed. LordCollaboration (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I clicked on the link you provided above and read that it says "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside."-Baangla (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

This does not address Counterfeit Purses’ question. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I was about to revert that edit but someone had already done so.-Baangla (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your corrections where I am wrong but if you also keep finding faults with every edit I make, someone will drag me to ANI again, using that.-Baangla (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

A few things:

1) I am not your lawyer. My primary responsibility is to Wikipedia. If I see an issue, I will inform you so it doesn’t repeat.

2) It’s not every edit. But competency is required here, and if there are continual editing problems, that will be an issue.

3) It is much less likely to go to ANI (which is for intractable problems) if I find it and let you know than if someone else finds it after it becomes a multi-page problem. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I do not mean this as an insult at all, but is English your native language? If not, it might be good to edit the version of Wikipedia in your native language for a while first to get an understanding of the basic rules and idea of Wikipedia. I think someone earlier recommended that, but I forget who.

The reason I ask is because you very frequently seem to not understand the questions or instructions given to you. The question here wasn’t why you didn’t self-revert; I fully believe you would have, because I asked you too, and you have done so before when I asked. The question was why you added it in the first place.

Also I would suggest striking the “stalker” part. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I can write/type with an advanced level of English. Many years ago, I had got a good score in TOEFL.-Baangla (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

BusterD wants me to avoid all the articles mentioned at WP:CTOP (it is a long list) and I will comply.-Baangla (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to add some text to the article about Hurricane Melissa but I see that "climate change" is a contentious topic (in the list I have provided a link to above). The section titled, "Meteorological history" does not mention the year in that article but I am not sure if I can add it.-Baangla (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think the year is needed there at all, it’s all over the lead, infobox, etc. that it happened in 2025. I highly doubt that particular edit would violate that CT, but why are we working on weather articles now? Why not just find a non-contentious topic (like Hawaii) and work there? LordCollaboration (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@LordCollaboration: I am looking at the latest news which is easy to find; the text to add to Hawaii related articles is more difficult to find, online.-Baangla (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you've read the sources that discuss Naroditsky's death and the allegations against Kramnik, you should be able to see that this is a rather controversial issue that has raised a lot of emotions within the chess community. I would advise less experienced editors like yourself not to edit Naroditsky's or Kramnik's articles while you are still learning how to edit appropriately. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 14:36, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I have been topic banned from articles related to South Asia and one of my mentors who is also an admin, BusterD wants me to avoid all contentious topics which includes BLP articles, so I will avoid editing that article till he gives me a green signal. My only edit to that article was reverted and I never edited that article again (I wanted to self revert that edit of mine but someone reverted it before I could).-Baangla (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, I didn't know you had discussed this with LordCollaboration when I asked my question, but you haven't yet said why you added that sentence. What did you think would be added or improved by your edit? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I wanted to help the reader/s understand that it was a suicide but when I went to revert the edit, I observed that someone had reverted it already since it was already mentioned in a sentence further below.-Baangla (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

We don't know if it was a suicide (but that's a moot point since what you added didn't say that it was). When you edited the article it already said that "his death is being investigated as a possible suicide or overdose". I just don't understand why would make the edit you did if you had read what was already there. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Counterfeit Purses: Please answer my question on the Talk page of the Aloha article. I had pinged you but I think you did not get notified about it.-Baangla (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD I think it might be time to block Baangla for competence reasons. Today in the Aloha article, they have added the following:However, "Aloha" is a Hawaiian word and its translation is ethereal. That comes from SurferToday.com where they said: But always remember that "Aloha" is a Hawaiian word and that its translation is ethereal. Forget the close paraphrasing and focus on the sentence. The translation of Aloha has already been provided at this point in the article. It is not ethereal, it is human and it is known. The concepts represented by the use of the word are also included in the article. This is unhelpful blog post fluff. Between the Daniel Naroditsky edit and this, I have no hope that Baangla will improve with any amount of mentroship. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

BusterD feels that the surfertoday.com source is reliable, see his last post above (this one) - more importantly, that source was cited by someone before me, I just used it to add one more sentence. I made just one edit to the Naroditsky article which I was about to self-revert but got reverted by someone else before that. Please read WP: BOOMERANG.-Baangla (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I have decided that this has to be an act. There's no way anyone can be this annoyingly incompetent unless they are doing it deliberately. And if BusterD thinks that SurferToday.com is a reliable source about anything other than possibly surfing, they are mistaken. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: The above editor has made this comment on the Talk page of the Aloha article which is not acceptable as per WP:BATTLEGROUND.-Baangla (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you have read something that one of your mentors has written and completely missed the point. You have ignored BusterD's critique of your writing and interpreted their comment as saying that SurferToday is a reliable source (that is not what they said). I am not going to make assumptions about your intentions here, but I can see why other editors have lost patience with you. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 10:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've also lost patience with Baangla. I'm beginning to feel this mentorship is misguided, unfortunately. In most mentorships, the newer editor is willing to edit reasonably. But in this mentorship, the newer editor is constantly asking permission to do ordinary things. There's a fundamental miscommunication between Baangla's responsibility and Baangla's willingness to read and follow our feedback. BusterD (talk) 10:45, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for editing on contentious topics after multiple warnings., as you did at Daniel Naroditsky.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  BusterD (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@BusterD: I made just one edit to the Naroditsky article which I was about to self-revert but got reverted by someone else before that. I also never edited that article again. I was topic banned from South Asia related articles but I have been avoiding all the articles listed at WP:CTOP also voluntarily after you told me to. I have also been asking my mentor if my edit would be acceptable before making my edit unless I was sure that my source was reliable. I want some clarification from you before I appeal my block.-Baangla (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Before the three of us signed the mentorship agreement I cautioned you to stay away from contentious topics. I gave you a link, and you clearly read about them since you complained how many there are. Yet you chose to make an edit on a biography of a living person which drew the attention of an uninvolved editor to this page. You are welcome to appeal your block, but I won't be helping you further. Good luck. BusterD (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

There's an appropriate line from the Legge translation of the I Ching, #4 Meng: I do not (go and) seek the youthful and inexperienced, but he comes and seeks me. When he shows (the sincerity that marks) the first recourse to divination, I instruct him. If he apply a second and third time, that is troublesome; and I do not instruct the troublesome. BusterD (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, the problem is that you just don't seem to be making progress, either because you aren't willing to or aren't able to learn. In order to convince an admin to unblock, you'll need to convince them that you have learned, when all evidence here says you haven't. I would suggest you go edit your native language wikipedia while you learn. Come back after you've made a couple thousands productive edits that haven't gotten you into trouble there. If you can show you've learned there, you may be able to convince an admin here to unblock. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, yesterday before I went to bed I asked you “please be do not make it a battleground or invoke my support” (regarding the Aloha content). I wake up and find:

1) You did not remove or strike your initial comment doing both things.

2) You invoked my support for the content several more times, as well as BusterD’s support for good measure.

3) You pinged the editor two more times before they even responded, ignored their argument about the content (instead invoking my support), and then proceeded to warn them about WP:BOOMERANG and say that their comments were not acceptable per WP:BATTLEGROUND.

All the exact opposite of what I asked.

I can’t be constantly online and monitor everything you do, you need to be able to listen to advice.

I’m sorry I wasn’t able to help you more. I strongly recommend listening to the advice here, editing in your native language for a long while and being seen as a constructive editor there. (Without thinking about the amount of time or number of edits - forget about English Wikipedia for a while, certainly do not concern yourself with the lifting of restrictions like XC, just focus on being a constructive editor.) LordCollaboration (talk) 13:49, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Baangla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I made just one edit to the Naroditsky article which I was about to self-revert but got reverted by someone else before that. I also never edited that article again. I was topic banned from South Asia related articles and I have not edited any article related to South Asia after the topic ban was imposed. I have also been asking my mentor if my edit would be acceptable before making my edit unless I was sure that my source was reliable. Please give me a rope as per WP:ROPE since I have not violated my topic ban. Baangla (talk) 12:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are not blocked for violating a topic ban. I agree with the above comments in that editing the English Wikipedia is not for you at this time. I agree you should edit the Wikipedia of your primary language(which likely needs the help much more than we do) and build up a constructive history there before returning here. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I strongly advise you not to make further unblock requests at this time. That will just get your talk page access removed. Under no circumstances should you create another account or edit as an IP; that will be considered sockpuppetry for the purposes of block evasion and will dig this hole way, way deeper. Go edit constructively at your primary language wikipedia. Come back in a few months with a record of productive editing there to demonstrate you've learned. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee: How many edits should I make to that wikipedia and how many days or months later should I appeal my block here, citing the number of edits in Wikipedia in some other language. I am unable to read and write Bengali (or can do so with difficulty), my native language, so can I edit the Hindi wikipedia articles and appeal this block after making say, 500 edits there?-Baangla (talk) 12:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You are still thinking about this the wrong way. The goal isn't to make a certain number of edits over a certain number of days so you can come back in here and say 'Valereee told me to make 500 edits over a three month period; I've done that so unblock me'. The goal is to become a productive editor. Yes, the Hindi encyclopedia would be a great choice [ETA:if you are fluent in Hindi; you also could try simple English wikipedia if your written English is better than your written Hindi]. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(ec) My advice is not to focus on a specific number of edits- that seems to be part of your difficulty, you are focused on meeting a requirement instead of fulfilling the spirit of the requirement. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

331 makes a very good point that I'd like to follow up on: the spirit of the requirement. What do you think the reasoning behind 500 edits+30 days is? Why do you think we have this rule for someone to become extended confirmed? Valereee (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Valereee and 331dot: I think it was to make editors understand the rules (I have also understood a lot). Can I edit the simple English Wikipedia now, make a couple of edits and appeal my ban after say, 3 months? Does the simple English Wikipedia have the same rules as this English Wikipedia? If my indefinite block is lifted, will the topic ban on South Asian articles remain? What about the restrictions imposed as per WP:ECR?-Baangla (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

You are digging the hole deeper every time you ask this. No, a couple of edits + 3 months won't suffice, and I'm getting closer and closer to just advising 10,000 edits and a year of daily productive non-problematic contributions since you're insisting on numbers.

Your topic ban is an indef, which means it needs to be appealed, which will still be true. Ditto ECR. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that there is a language or cultural barrier that is causing you to not understand what we are saying. You seem singularly focused on fulfilling requirements and not actually learning what the requirements are supposed to make you learn. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Here's an alternative explanation: The Wikipedia:Standard offer and recommendation to edit elsewhere is intended to give you the opportunity to build up a portfolio of evidence that you can be a productive, problem-free editor.

If you went to Simple Wikipedia and added 500 commas or corrected 500 typos that'd be essentially useless. It wouldn't show admins that you can be relied on to edit long-term without causing problems for other editors.

You need to show you can make Wikipedia better as a whole. You need to show substantive, productive and useful edits, therefore you need evidence of substantive, productive and useful edits on another project.

The limit with the Standard Offer is usually six months because it takes that long to learn and build up that sort of history. It could be slightly more or less depending on how much progress you make, but it's far, far too early to have that discussion.

The problem is that you were editing without learning, it'll take time and effort to get over that hurdle. I'm sure you can do it, but focus on developing yourself first - English Wikipedia isn't going anywhere and the longer you wait the more you learn, you'll gather more evidence and have a better chance of success. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I've been keeping track of this since I saw it at ANI. Baangla, there is no set amount of edits you need to make to be able to receive edit privileges on English Wikipedia. List to Blue Sonnet and take the SO, while being productive on another Wikipedia project. If you do not have a proficient English understanding, I suggest staying away from Wikipedia until that is the case, and be a productive editor on a project where you best understand the language. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 15:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Baangla has apparently moved to Simple Wikipedia. They sent me an email and attempted to convince me I should help them there. I've since removed my email permission on that platform. BusterD (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes. He/she wrote a new article: simple:Shashank Subramanyam based on sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Does the TBAN apply to Simple as well? If so, I believe this violates their South Asia TBAN. CREditzWiki (yap) | (things i apparently did) 19:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, as Simple is a different project with different rules, but don't quote me on this. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Banning policy. Baangla was given a topic ban on English-language Wikipedia, not a global topic ban. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

No. In fact we actively encourage people who are blocked on en.wiki to edit on other projects to learn and develop so they can come back here. Valereee (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Now blocked for a month on Simple

an unfortunate but probably expected outcome. The underlying reason is different but IDHT/English language competence pieces still very much a part. Star Mississippi 16:16, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm definitely sad to see that. I was hopeful at the start that Banglaa could grow as an editor. While the CT/SA topic ban didn't carry over to Simple, it was really poor judgment for them to edit on not just that topic, but some of the most controversial parts of that topic. There was no chance of them flying under the radar. After reading the edits on Simple, while English fluency issues probably don't help, I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that if there's an edit or something else they wish to do, they have real issues refraining from it even if they should. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:21, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't think my English is poor but if you do believe that it is, please give examples.-Baangla (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Baangla, when you wrote "I don't think my English is poor", you confirmed that you have an IDHT problem. That was an own goal! So where do you think you are on the following scale?

T. This user understands English through translation software.

0. This user understands English with considerable difficulty.

1. This user can contribute with a basic level of English.

2. This user can contribute with an intermediate level of English.

3. This user can contribute with an advanced level of English.

4. This user can contribute with a near-native level of English.

5. This user can contribute with a professional level of English.

N. This user is a native speaker of the English language.

On the positive side, Baangla has been making an effort to make significant and useful contributions to Simple. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Since you asked, I don't think it's poor. I think you could live in an English-speaking city quite easily. But we're writing an encyclopedia, and I do think you miss a lot of very specific things that are said to you, things that were explained to you three or four times that I'm still not sure you fully understood. So the natural conclusion is to assume that there are fluency problems before assuming that you do understand, but just refuse to follow the rules. The former is a far kinder assumption. This is not meant to insult you or humiliate you; I can speak four languages on a conversational level, but I only speak one language well enough that I'd dare to work on an encyclopedia in that language.

And yes, I believe you showed poor judgment by jumping into things like India-Pakistan conflicts. You were not topic-banned on Simple, but given that you know that it's a controversial topic, and you know that you have a lot of things to learn, I don't understand why you thought that was a good idea. I'm still hopeful you'll be able to get back on track. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Toddy1, I would select, "This user can contribute with a professional level of English". CoffeeCrumbs, I believe that an editor should seek, ask for help, learn and edit even contentious topics instead of avoiding them. I got blocked here on this English Wikipedia not because my English is poor but because I used a source which was a reliable source for a sentence for another sentence which I did not understand was unacceptable at that time. I should have been explained that and allowed to continue editing but I will do the right thing now and ask for my sanction/s to be lifted only after a couple of months and many edits on the Simple Wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read this - I believe it is the best advice I have received on any wikipedia.-Baangla (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)