User talk:Varoon2542

Hello, Varoon2542, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 23:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the request for "speedy deletion". I just created my account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varoon2542 (talk • contribs)

Hi Varoon2542, sorry about that - I've fixed it for you. Welcome to Wikipedia ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mauritians of Indian origin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Satrar (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Even if the whole section is unsourced as you stated, in the case of Wesley Said, his own article has no source material on him having indian ancestry. If I may take the example of Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam and Vikash Dhorasoo, their respective articles have the references necessary to attest of their indian ancestry

So may I know on what basis you reverted my edits?

Looking forward to your answer

I don't see any problem in adding names but first you should consider reading WP:RS and then adding a reliable source for the names you add to the article. From my side you can add as many names as you want but don't forget to add a reliable source. Do ping my name also once you are addressing me. Satrar (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Satrar I'm a little bit perplexed. You are asking me to add a reliable source for a name I want to add but I never added any name... I REMOVED one because the article of the footballer didn't have any reliable source to justify the presence of his name in that list. You are accusing me of doing something that you did and threatening me with an edit war warning. This isn't even remotely fair or coherent

I agree with ZLEA that if you want to readd a name, then it's up to you to furnish the reliable source. All the other names at least have reliable sources on their respective main articles. Varoon2542 (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

ZLEA May I have your arbitration? Varoon2542 (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused as to why you chose me, as I don't recall encountering you before (correct me if I'm wrong). Given my history with Satrar, I'm probably not the best person to ask for arbitration, but I'll give my two cents anyway. While this is not proper usage of the citation needed template (Template:Unreferenced section is the proper template for this case), I agree with Satrar that the section should be sourced. However, because it is currently unsourced, Varoon2542 can justifiably remove Wesley Saïd, or any other name, from the list. Per WP:BURDEN, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Therefore, if any names are removed from the list ,they should only be re-added if a reliable source is provided.

I would also like to say that the edit war warning is a bit aggressive, considering no one has broken WP:3RR and Satrar has performed two reverts while Varoon2542 has performed only one. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Satrar (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.105 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well this escalated. I'll be watching this case very closely. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

ZLEA As you may have noticed, all the pages where my edits are being reverted, be it Wesley Said, Nayyara Noor or Fly Anakin, the reverts are made mostly by unidentified editors. How can I be bullied in such a way in full impunity? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's most likely a single editor hopping IPs. If it continues, the best course of action would be to request page protection. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:20, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sorry it has come to this but I need your help to rein in on Satrar. He is now undoing my edits on "Mauritius". He is not even interested about the article just looking for what I'm editing and undoing it. How should I proceed to have him leave me alone? Varoon2542 (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Satrar is actually correct at Mauritius. You are changing the content without changing the reference. My bad, I missed the ref. Can you provide evidence of a pattern of hounding? - ZLEA _T\^C 12:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I did. The former reference I disagreed with is from a UK travel guide and my reference is the 2011 Census. The census figures have been used since their publication before the recent modification. I've been editing that page for years...

As far as hounding is concerned, he did it on the following pages, Wesley Said, Nayaraa Noor, Mauritian of Indian Descent, Fly Anakin and now Mauritius. It all started on the Nayaara Noor article which is the most obvious example. Sources n°1 and 2 were already used as reference. I merely added additional information from the same sources and he said they were unreferenced. I kept asking him to read the articles but he undid the edits saying they were unreferenced. The same article spoke of the artist being renowned in the "subcontinent", I edited it to "pakistan" as no source material from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka etc. documents her life, work and death. She might have been a household name in Pakistan, but unless proven otherwise, she was unknown in the rest of the subcontinent. I believe he didn't take that well. I rest my case on this issue. Nothing more to add. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You might want to take this issue to WP:AN/I. - ZLEA _T\^C 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Bagumba May I have your arbitration, please ? He is like stalking me Varoon2542 (talk) 09:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

The complaint was made by 116.71.160.23. It seems to me that 116.71.160.23 is just a single editor hopping IPs. I find it a bit rich that an unidentified editor who doesn't even have a user page is complaining against me. The only identified one is Satrar

I've already sought arbitration for what I feel is hounding (please look above). I'm also keen on settling this issue. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Satrar (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Seewoosagur Ramgoolam. The sources other than Indian express one are not considered reliable. Also, be informed of wiki policies. You can't decide anything, you need to write what source say. Admantine123 (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

And how did you decide that only one source is reliable?

The sources you are criticising are mauritian sources and the one you are backing is an indian one. What is this? Indian imperialism?

Should I remind you that the article is on a MAURITIAN statesman?

I'm saying this for the last time. Indian constitutional provisions have no relevancy in Mauritius. There are no forward, backward, scheduled caste, schedules tribe in Mauritian law, societal discourse, anywhere. Just because one clueless indian journalist used one of those terms, doesn't make it more relevant in the mauritian context.

If you knew anything about Mauritius, you would have known that in Mauritius what you indians call forward castes are termed "Grand nations" and what you call backward castes are called "Ti nations" but you don't speak Mauritian creole, do you? What do you exactly know about Mauritius?

One of the sources I inserted is the only comprehensive research work on the issue of castes in Mauritius. It was done by a french professor and it's available in English. The second one is by a Mauritian researcher. Give them a read

BTW, you are not only edit warring, you are also removing sources that go against your narrative which is dishonest and malicious

If you want to disprove my point then go find a Mauritian article that makes reference to indian terminology in Mauritius. Feel free to learn french fast to read "Le Mauricien" or you could read some of the articles published in English by "L'Express"

I don't care much about your threats. If you wish to have me banned, move the issue on the relevant page and let us see what the administrators think. Varoon2542 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Novem Linguae Hello, I'm not asking for help right now but in case the matter were to escalate, I would eventually like your arbitration. I'm acting in good faith. Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I haven't looked into this in detail, but as a newer editor it is often a good idea to follow the advice of more experienced editors. If someone with 19,000 edits is telling you that you're using unreliable sources, then maybe you are using unreliable sources and should avoid placing those in articles. Try to be a sponge until you get a bit more experience. There's a lot to learn. Hope this helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

		The Current Events Barnstar
		In recognition of your contributions to the article Killing of Nahel Merzouk. --Cdjp1 talk 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you !

That's very kind of you. Truly appreciate it :) Varoon2542 (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the revert there. I misread your summary. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

No offense, my edit was later reverted by someone else since long now :) Varoon2542 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jammu and Kashmir (union territory), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ramban, Doda and Poonch.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Mauritius, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 14:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're biased like your fellow countryman

46% of all foreign nationals in Mauritius are Bangladeshi citizens

That's a sourced, notable fact

How is that a point of view ?

I'm not going to wait for consensus when the only two people who have an issue with this information happen to be Bangladeshis

I don't actually understand why this statistic bothers you ? Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country ?

You aren't even interested in improving the Mauritius article, your only point of interest is the removal of one particular information that, unsurprisingly, has a link to you Varoon2542 (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Provide me 2-3 reliable and independent sources (without primary and secondary) that say that 46% of all foreign nationals in Mauritius are Bangladeshi citizens.

Don't personally attack on Wikipedia, saying, Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country ?". Follow WP:NOPA. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

"reliable and independent sources"? Like the 2022 NATIONAL CENSUS ? What can be more reliable ?

You're clearly completely clueless on the content on the article

Hello, User talk:El C, I'm not against third party abitration. What do you think ? Is the census a reliable source? Varoon2542 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see that census reference carefully. Yes, the census is a reliable source, but every country has expats and immigrants; it’s not necessary to mention particular one country percentages in the infobox as your citation mentions this information for more than 17 countries. But can be written inside the article. (the Indian national percentage is bigger than the Bangladeshi one, as you are saying 46% is Bangladeshi [page-143 of your citation]) Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

I never mentioned it in the infobox, it was in the body of the article as a small paragraph of the demographics section

I do agree though that I inferred, in the infobox, the skewing of the religious figures from these statistics. The census makes no mention of the religious composition of the bangladeshi immigrants so I could have overread this but I didn't see why the religious composition of factory workers from Bangladesh should be any different from the national statistics of Bangladesh

There is no visible impact of the presence of Indian nationals in Mauritius, especially since they occupy more diverse professions, while the impact of bangladeshis can be felt with the introduction of a formerly not spoken language, Bengali

I don't mind mentioning the percentage of Indian nationals in Mauritius, if it is a noteworthy information, I just have to calculate it Varoon2542 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Niasoh: User has an history of edit warring and using personal attacks. Better report this to WP:ANI. Comments like You're biased like your fellow countryman or Are you ashamed that your countrymen migrate to my country? are clear WP:No personal attacks violation, something this user likes to do often. ~ AnonLionCavalier83 (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'm Jolielover. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Nepo baby, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. jolielover♥talk 15:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

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

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

As I've told you before, adding the passage you keep adding there is simply bad writing. You've tried justifyimg it by pointing out bad writing else, but that isn't a justification. I've pointed out ways you can make it work and, since you seem simply not willing to follow that guidance, next steps you can take if you want to pursue a consensus somehow. Lurking for months and then adding the text from scratch as though the dispute had disappeared and giving the same justification that wasn't satisfactory during the previous discussion is not one of those steps. Largoplazo (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

i)

"Lurking for months"

Those suffering from paranoia should seek therapy

I don't lurk, I've got a life and unlike you, I'm not obsessed to the point of reverting edits within minutes. That actually says more about you.

ii)

Now, on the edits themselves. I didn't include the information you are desperately trying to remove. I merely reformulated it months ago.

You removed it and I pointed out the inconsistency with other country articles

You never furnished a valid reason for maintaing such an inconsistency

You brought the issue on the talk page but it seems that noone was interested in the subject

You are right on one point. One should wait on consensus

But as the information was there first, before you removed it, the consensus should be on your deletion not on its inclusion

While the imaginary debate keeps raging on the talk page, there is no reason to delete it

Now excuse me, I've got some lurking to do... Varoon2542 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I'm glad you contacted me

I asked an admin, Bagumba, for help

Can the "Christianity in India" article be semi-protected, at least to avoid edits by unconfirmed editors ?

Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bodhana Sivanandan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islam in Mauritius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I see you made this edit to Joby Harte. Thanks for your contributions.

The issue I want to point out is the use of the word "convicted" here. Conviction means that Harte was convicted at a criminal trial and sent to prison, which he was not. He was found "liable" (not "guilty" as used in US criminal courts) in a Los Angeles court in a civil (not criminal) case, so he was not actually convicted of a crime. That is to say, that judgment doesn't add anything onto his criminal record. Instead, as punishment he had to pay the victim damages. This is why that information had to be changed in the lead. Just wanted to give you a heads up. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:58, 9 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is no mention of that in the controversy subsection. Reading it, one would think there was no case at all. Varoon2542 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sindhis, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page.
Please stop trying to use pre 1947 statistics as if they are current figures - Arjayay (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any recent statistics on the ETHNIC group and not the PROVINCE ? Varoon2542 (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please do not add inappropriately sourced changes of statistical data as you did in France and Religion in France. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 09:34, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

It's the IFOP 2025 report based on 15000 respondents

It's the best source we have Varoon2542 (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello @Varoon2542: May I ask why you are edit warring against a computer bot (User:JJMC89_bot) on Charlie Hebdo shooting and Charb? Do you expect this automated computer script to get tired first? --McSly (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why the same bot didn't delete the same file on the Samuel Paty murder article ?

If it can be used in one article, why can't it be used elsewhere ?

P.S : I was hoping a human would notice, thank you for noticing human Varoon2542 (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The bot does give a reason, in this case there is no valid basis for use of non-free image. That depends partly on the context, therefore it is possible to use a non-free image in one article but not in another. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that

Who decides on when it is valid and when it's not ?

I've asked someone who contributed on the Samuel Paty murder article for some help

It's quite ironic given that its use is more appropriate on these two articles that are directly related to Charlie Hebdo and the shootings Varoon2542 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm not commenting on whether the use of any particular image is or isn't appropriate in any particular article, just explaining that the bot reverted your edits as WP:NFCC violations, as it said in the edit summaries.

The non-free content policy is laid out at WP:NFCCP, and the whole of that page is also worth reading (as are some of the things links in it point to).

HTH, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

If in your opinion this article should be rated higher than low importance for Wikipedia:WikiProject France, as you said at User talk:CoffeeCrumbs#Persecuted by a bot - go ahead and upgrade it! though my preferred practice is to change a rating by no more than one step, in this case to mid (see Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Priority assessment). You have the right to do so. I don't think I've rated any article I started higher than start-class and low-importance; if any of them now have a higher rating. it's because another editor thought that it should. Best, Narky Blert (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I was actually referring to the Murder of Samuel Paty article even if this one too deserves a higher rating

Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Oops, my mistake! but the same applies. The Paty article was rated in September 2021. If you think it deserves a higher rating, go ahead and upgrade it. If anyone objects (probably unlikely), discuss it. Importance-rating is a matter of opinion. Best, Narky Blert (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi Varoon, I'm unsure if you're aware but there's currently a proposal for a Mauritian Creole Wikipedia that you may be interested in contributing to (see incubator:Help:Manual for guidance). Unfortunately the incubated wiki appears inactive at the moment, but I thought that I should let you know. Thanks, Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:05, 15 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Thanks for telling me !

I'm not familiar with the standardised version of Mauritian Creole

Back when I was at school, it wasn't even offered as a subject

I'll try to participate but I've got an oral knowledge of the language and hardly masters its standardised orthography

Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Haryana did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. If you are logged in to your account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Editor → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2026 (UTC)Reply

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~2026-55354-89 (talk) 03:47, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your recent edits appear to be disruptive. Please note that this is not necessarily an assessment of faith or character, and we welcome good faith edits that are also constructive and in line with our policies.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request through the unblock wizard or through your talk page.  The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:06, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

An indefinite block for what ?

Have you actually taken a look at my edits over the years ?

My edits have stood the test of time.

I believe you've been misguided but I'm sure noone even verified who was vandalising and who was actually being factual in their work.

If that's how it now works on Wikipedia, I may as well spend my time elsewhere.

Farewell

Varoon2542 (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This addresses none of the issues raised in the AN thread that's linked to in the block log. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:52, 20 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I hope you do realise that the disputed edits, in the end, were as I had written them.

In the "Mauritius" article, in the demographics section, there's a small paragraph on the nationalities that most migrants in the country hold.

My only "mistake" is that I didn't clean up this old dispute on my talk page.

Otherwise, you wouldn't even have known I called out two Bangladeshi editors for repeatedly removing census data that said that nearly half of all migrants in Mauritius are from Bangladesh.

In a way, my honesty caused my downfall, I should have cleaned up my talk page.

Should I have singled them out for being Bangladeshis ? Probably not but I found their behaviour suspicious.

What else ? The editor who called for sanctions was the one edit warring on the "Mauritians of Indian Origin" article.

On that article, another editor was banned for sockpuppetry. Then just a short time after, you have an unidentified account modifying the article in the same way.

What was I to think ? There were obvious signs of sockpuppetry.

Anything else ?

And this justifies an indefinite block ?

Where's the proportionality in the sentencing ? Varoon2542 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply