Hi. I have told you before and Im telling you again. Please edit the infoboxes using source editing. It becomes difficult for source editors to edit the infoboxes like the way you edited using visual editing. The points table is added after the tournament for previous of the DPL and Im following the trend this season too. Thanks Human (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A Simple Human: There is no such obligation that points table cannot be added during the tournament, even if previous season's weren't added. The revert by you was really pointless. Has every members of Cricket Project gave such restrictions with a consensus that points tables can't be added while the tournament is going on? May be, in previous seasons of DPL, the creators haven't added thinking that it needed to be updated daily. But I am not such lazy as them. Please reply here. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 10:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theres no laziness involved. Im doing what has been done all these years. And please stop having a tendency to fight with everyone. I told you I want to help you here. The table is too long to update regularly and if youre going to add them now then its your responsible to update them as Im not going to do them. And ofcourse do something about the infobox layout to match other articles. Human (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A Simple Human: I use the source editor for infoboxes used in articles created by anyone except me. But I just use the visual editor for infoboxes in just my articles, as anybody probably won't come to edit infoboxes of my articles. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a valid reason. What makes you think noone would come to edit your infobox. For example, Im here. Anyways, fix them or Im going to do them myself later. Im not to talk about the notability of your created articles. Let others see and handle them. Human (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A Simple Human: Okay, I will try to use the source editor. And I am not really fighting with you or everyone, rather just talking to you normally, as I am aware of the behavioural policies. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 11:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about behavorial issues. Your tone becomes defensive when something is pointed out about you. Also you are telling others to reply to you in an orderly manner, something you did to a certain editor. Remember noone is obliged to reply here and can choose not to. This was pointed out to you before by an admin. Human (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@A Simple Human: I am never forcing you to reply. Its just your wish about it. You don't need to remind me as I was earlier notified by an admin about this. And the way you are saying "Your tone becomes defensive when something is pointed out about you." such that - when police catch me and threaten me to arrest, my tone becomes defensive. Here the thing you pointed out about me wasn't a crime, rather your misunderstanding, so don't really understand to get such reply. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 11:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assalamualaikum vai.Pls chk this and remove deletion tag
Brother last day I made a wiki about a Bangladeshi actress Named "Afrin Sultana Laboni " known as "Priyo Moni". Her name was enlisted in Top ten finalist on Miss World Bangladesh 2018 and she got that time Best Behavior Award.
She acted in two movies named " Valobasar Projapati" directed by Raju Alim & Masuma Tani and "Koshai(2021)" by Anonno Mamun.
I have made a wiki then showed my mentor bt he put deletion tag.
Pls brother you check it and remove the tag cause she is notable.
@Itsyouriman: Yes, I have removed the deletion tag because there seems to be sufficient coverage about the actress in online websites to pass WP:NACTOR. She also got two awards in her career. If notability is challenged, then those sources may not be enough. But the user who requested speedy deletion should have rather nominate it for deletion if he doubt about notability. And I will also suggest you to add more English language sources than Bengali language in the article, so that people who are not from Bangladesh or beyond can verify the information easily. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 06:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Hope you do well on your finals. Editing Wikipedia sounds like something fun to do while you're in college. Have fun with cricket, and if you get a chance -- check out rock balancing (that's fun too!) :-) There's lots of different youtube videos out there by different people, showing how it's done. It's personally brought me peace and relaxation. Take care of yourself, peace out. Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021: Thanks for the message, really means a lot. I never interacted with you, wondering how you came to know me. This is the first time anyone has left me a Wikilove message, thanks for it and I would like to welcome to contribute to the Cricket Project. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 06:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @A.A._Prinon -- I like to send Wiki-food to thank anyone who has stopped by my pages to try and help me out. :) I'm not too knowledgeable about cricket, but you have fun. :-) Have you ever tried rock balancing there? I used to find rocks to balance in between my class schedule -- it's a nice way to let go of stress and build concentration. :) If you find a few little stones, give it a try! "Know that in this moment, you are worthy. You are enough." ~Travis Ruskus, pg. 145 in "The Rock Balancer's Guide: Discover the Mindful Art of Balance." Follow.your.inner.heroes.2.the.work.you.love.2021 (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
July 2021
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's harassment policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GirthSummit (blether) 17:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The be clear: this and this are entirely unacceptable. I don't know, or care, what your history with that user is, this needs to stop. If it continues in any form after the block expires, the next block will be indefinite. GirthSummit (blether) 17:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Yes, my behavior was unacceptable. And Lugnuts' behaviour was entirely acceptable, right?
I were obliged to show this type of behaviour in lose of patience. At first, he reverted my edits at Sophia Dunkley claiming that fifties were trivial. I believe that the edit I made was a significant record of a cricketer. So, I reverted his edit, saying in the edit summary, fifties are trivial, but it is her first half-century in international career just immediately after making debut, so it should be included. But without seeing the edit summary, he reverted my edit. Then I respectfully asked him to see the previous edit summary. Then may be the user had seen the edit summary. Then he did realise that the half-century in that match was not less important/trivial, so he did not revert that. But this time, a personal attack came towards me, which is I think entirely unacceptable. He modified the edit I made, and said in the edit summary, " claim his first half-century " - WP:CIR, obvious stalking from this user who was blocked for mis-using multiple accounts. I just made a minor language mistake, used "his" instead of "her" in the sentence, but for this little mistake, they asked me that competence his required. WP:CIR clearly states at the top of the page, Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack. You may see all of my created articles, I am sure that you will not find a single page, where I used poor grammar and English. But just with a minor mistake, user was claiming that my edits were disruptive and I had no competence. So, isn't it a personal attack towards me @Girth Summit:?— A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 03:51, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is why you were blocked. You told Lugnuts you weren't going to stalk them and then immediately reverted them, twice, with the edit summaries "Hello, I am stalking your edits" and "Hey there, are you sleeping?". I'd say you got off pretty light – harassment is usually an indefinite block. If you aren't willing to understand what you did wrong, and instead insist on blaming or harassing Lugnuts, that's the next step. – bradv🍁 03:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv: Yes, I obviously realize my mistake I did. That's why I am not going to make an unblock request. In this 21 hours time, I am going to read all Wikipedia's policies including the behavioural guidelines to be aware the next time. I gladly accept the punishment I got, but Lugnuts first started personal attacks on me. What do you think, saying WP:CIR was very necessary at that moment. And Lugnuts is just always claiming that I was stalking his edits. But I wasn't, I save any page that I edit to watchlist for one week, in order to know if anyone is reverting that or not. But he is giving false accusations on me about stalking, being WP:ABF. And he is continuously engaging with silly edit warring with me. Without knowing what change I made to Sophia Dunkley, he reverted it saying trivial. At Peter Anderson (New Zealand cricketer), I just changed "first-class" to "FC" which is commonly used in infoboxes. But he reverted without any reason. These behaviours by him was most recent. Since when I started editing here, he used to do these. You can find those at Mohammad Naim and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 90. Are all those acceptable, and just my ones are unacceptable. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 04:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"False accusations on me about stalking"? You just admitted you were stalking them. – bradv🍁 04:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that you thought that linking to the history of Peter Anderson (New Zealand cricketer) would help your case: it doesn't, you openly admitted to harassing him there as well. Skimming through the comments above, I don't think that you have entirely got what I'm saying to you, so I'll try to explain it again. I said that I don't know or care about the history between you both. What I meant by that was that I have not looked into all of your interactions, or attempted to evaluate whether there is any fault on Lugnuts' part, because I see no reason to do so: you have openly admitted to stalking his edits, and it is clear that you were intentionally trying to annoy him. You say that you were "obliged" to behave in that way, but the opposite is true: you are obliged not to behave in that way. There are no circumstances under which that sort of thing is appropriate, hence the block.
What you do next is up to you, but you need to be clear that this behaviour has to stop, immediately. Another admin told you recently that you should try to self-impose an interaction ban: that was very good advice. If I get the impression in any way that you are trying to continue harassing him, the next block will be indefinite. There are literally millions of articles on this project, there is plenty of room for you to stay away from each other. Tread carefully. GirthSummit (blether) 06:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: 80% of the articles of Cricket Project are created by Lugnuts. So, how could I stop interacting with him. If I make any edit, most of the time, he starts to engage in silly edit-warring with me. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 06:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are on very thin ice: stop jumping up and down. You have followed him around, editing articles he recently created, or those which he has recently edited, and you used edit summaries that made it entirely clear that your goal was to annoy him. That wasn't about accidentally bumping into him on articles about cricket, that was a conscious decision you made to harass another editor. The difficulty you are having understanding how inappropriate that was makes me question whether I was wrong not to make the block indefinite, and I am quite close to changing my mind. As I said, there are millions of articles on this project: you shouldn't have too much difficulty avoiding him. GirthSummit (blether) 07:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will avoid them. I promise to refrain from harassment or behaviours stated above in the future. But I didn't started stalking from the very first time he started to make claims. The article Sophia Dunkley wasn't recently created by the user, and I did not make an edit to that article in order to cause annoy. As soon I just had received a latest news about that player, I made an edit. As I have stated earlier, when I edit any article, I save the page to watchlist for 1 week to see if anyone is reverting those or not. So, when he reverted my edit to that article, I restored my edit as I disagreed. But he claimed that I was stalking, whereas I wasn't, I was notified as the page was in watchlist. But as he told that I was stalking, I felt anger at that false claim and so I truly decided to annoy him (and then I annoyed). Yes, I confess my guilt and will not repeat it again. But as I said earlier, most articles of the Cricket Project are created by Lugnuts, regardless of most recent or oldest. So, it is really difficult to not interact with him, as I mostly edit cricket articles. So, please advise me what shall I do then? How will I avoid? — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 08:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, you edited that article for the very first time a few hours after Lugnuts had last edited it. I expect you to ensure that you never do anything like that again. (For what it's worth, your edit was very poorly written - I cannot fault Lugnuts for reverting it.) GirthSummit (blether) 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, Yes, I am ensuring that I will never do anything like that again. And yes, if my edit was poorly written, he could modified it to appear normal. But he claimed that it was trivial. Girth Summit, as you are a Scottish, you should know about football. Suppose, a footballer has just made his international debut. And in his/her very next match, he/she alone scored 2-4 goals and as a result his/her team has won that match. So, wouldn't that player receive widespread coverage, wouldn't there be positive reactions. So, now my question is- how can it be trivial when a player scores a half century in international debut match? But Lugnuts claimed that it was less important, although later he admitted and restored it after modifying my edit. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 09:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, her performance also received widespread online coverage as per the sources I cited in my edit. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 09:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, I don't know anything about football, don't make assumptions about people based on their nationality. I'm not interested in discussing the details of the content dispute at that article with you, I just needed to know that you understand that you need to stay away from that editor. You've said that you understand that, so I'm willing to give you a chance to demonstrate that. GirthSummit (blether) 09:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I would like to get something clarified. If I am having an interaction ban with Lugnuts, can't I edit articles created by him? WP:IBAN just states, Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted toundo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means. So there is perhaps no restriction about editing others articles, if I am particularly not going to cause any annoy to the creator. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 09:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, I have not said that you cannot edit pages that he created. I said that you can't follow him around. If you show up to edit a page shortly after he edited it, you will give the impression of having followed him there, particularly if you haven't edited it before. If you edit a new article that he recently created, you will give the impression of having followed him there. If, on the other hand, you edit an article that he created years ago, and which has been edited by lots of people since that time and his name is not amongst the recent contributors, you will probably be fine. Is that clear enough? GirthSummit (blether) 09:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, hmm. I'm not sure that I do trust you - I mean, you have just recently been engaging in a harassment campaign, targeting another editor. However, you are fairly new, and I am willing to give you a chance to develop that trust. If I were to unblock you early, what articles would you edit? GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, I would like to make an edit to the article Adam Milne, as there has been a recent coverage about him here. Actually, there are innumerable articles on Wikipedia which needs to be updated, created and also deleted. So, I just want to stay here to help Wikipedia, I neither have any personal benefit nor have any financial profit for editing here. If you unblocked me, I would start editing many of those articles which needs update, expansion and improvement including the above article I specifically cited, and will try to edit in line with the policy. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 10:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am shocked to see that Lugnuts is not believing that I am obeying the one-account restriction. I am now blocked, but I could be able to edit with my IP address (which is unblocked), in order to evade the block. But I am not evading the block, because I promised earlier that I would not edit with any other account at any costs. So, how can he say that I am not net positive to the project? Anyways, Lugnuts: please stay away from my talk page. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 10:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, you are blocked for harassing an individual user. When asked which article you would like to edit if you were to be unblocked early, out of the six million articles that exist, you chose one that you had never edited before, and which has been edited multiple times in the last few months by the target of your harassment, and you say you want to do this because you found trivial coverage of him in a brief match report? I'm sorry, I can't see that as a serious attempt to find other areas to edit in, I can only conclude that you are looking for ways to continue your harassment within some set of boundaries which you imagine I am able to spell out for you. I have therefore changed your block to be indefinite - if you wish to edit here, you will need to convince another administrator that you truly understand why you are blocked, and that you will genuinely make efforts to avoid repeating the behaviour. GirthSummit (blether) 11:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Not at all, I am not finding ways to continue the harassment. I am rather looking forward to avoid this type of behaviour. I clearly understand why I am blocked. I was involved in a harassment or personal attacks with an editor in lose of patience, which is against Wikipedia policies. My attitude was completely unethical, and so I was blocked. As I have been in a dispute with Lugnuts, there would be more harassments if I continue to interact with him. So, the solution to avoid this type of behaviour is- "Not to interact with him in discussions and not to track his edits, and trying best to avoid him." This is because if I avoid him, there will be no further disputes or arguments, let alone harassments. So, I have to genuinely make efforts to not interact with him in order to avoid repeating the behaviour.
I actually wanted to edit the article Adam Milne because it was last edited by Lugnuts 3 months away. As he is not active in editing that article, I thought that there would not be any dispute or battleground behaviour between us, if I edit that article. But my ultimate goal is never to continue this behaviour, please tell me what shall I do to prove that I will not repeat this type of behaviours. I have already told you that I am wiling to continue editing Wikipedia under the condition that I will not harass any editor from now on. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 13:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A.A Prinon, I am not convinced that you are capable of moving on from this. You are welcome to read WP:GAB, make an unblock request, and try to convince another administrator that you should be unblocked. GirthSummit (blether) 14:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: I am capable from moving from that. If I am able to be a Wikipedian, if I am able to create articles, then why won't I be able to follow its rules and laws. You please unblock me so that I can make useful contributions from now on. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 14:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to unblock you at this point - I think you need to mature a bit before editing here, and allow some water to flow under the bridge. However, you are free to make an unblock request, and another admin will review it. Best GirthSummit (blether) 14:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: Editing Wikipedia is my hobby, so I love editing here from premature age. I want to be unblocked now because I am missing my favourite leisure spot. If you unblock me now, then I will be able start contributing from now at this moment, for the benefit of the community. If I am again involved in any attacks in near future, then you may simply block me permanently. I have already been given a last chance about editing with multiple accounts, and I am obeying it wholeheartedly. So, I am also expecting that I am given a last chance regarding personal attacks or behavioural policy. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 14:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to cause you any distress, but I'm not going to unblock you, I'm afraid I'm simply not convinced that you will cease the disruption if I do. If you want my advice, it would be to focus on your studies, grow up a bit, let this experience fade into the past, and then in six months time, if you want to edit again, apply for unblock per the standard offer. You don't need to follow that advice though: you are at liberty to read WP:GAB and make a formal unblock request now, which will be reviewed by another admin. It's your call, but please stop pinging me. Best GirthSummit (blether) 18:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock me
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Hello, admins. I was actually blocked on 2 June 2021 from editing for a period of 31 hours. In this meantime, I have reviewed Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and realized the reason why I am blocked. I understand that I was blocked because I had involved in harassment and war of words with an editor. At this point, when I am realizing that my behaviour was unethical, I have nothing to do but to apologise. I wholeheartedly apologise for losing my temper and behaving in such a way that is against Wikipedia's policies. Lugnuts, if you are viewing this page, then I would like to apologise you for my acts, and hope that you will forgive me for my immoral activity. I am completely ashamed to the whole community for the behaviour I presented. I have been blocked in order to prevent these behaviours. But now I think that the block is not necessary because I understand my mistake and I understand how to avoid these mistakes in the future. I am just making an unblock request because I am very willing to make productive contributions to Wikipedia especially to Cricket and related areas. I would like to request everyone not to misunderstand me, I am not here to destroy Wikipedia, I wish to work here towards one goal and that is to improve the Wikipedia. Now, I don't care how Lugnuts behaved with me, or how others behaviour is, but I realise that my behaviour was completely unexpected and unacceptable, and I should not have presented it.
I have been a volunteer on Wikipedia for more than 6 months. In these 6 months time, I have made many mistakes and errors, but it is more a truth that I have made more than 3000 useful contributions and created more than 40 articles. So, I think that in response to my contributions, I, at least deserve a second or last chance for my mistake. I promise that I will never involve in any war of words with Lugnuts or any other editors, and also promise not to use uncivil edit summaries.
@Girth Summit: or any other admins: I hope you believe I'm being sincere here. What else can I say? My latest block log clearly shows a block for a personal attack. What reassurances can I give? I can just give you 100% assurance that this will not happen again. I will try my best to maintain a cordial relationship with every editors, avoiding all types hostility behaviour, which will help me not to repeat these type of mistakes again.
Yesterday, Girth Summit blocked me indefinitely thinking that I was finding ways to continue the harassment process. But as I told earlier, I negate this thought. I am very willing not to continue this behaviour. I would argue that the issue has ceased, with issues resolved, with a promise of this not continuing with any other editor. Thanks and hope to get some positive response. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 05:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swearing by Allah, I promise that I will not continue this behaviour again. If I get unblocked and start this unicivil attitude again, then simply please be free to block me for good. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 06:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also request admins to hide the edit summaries I used in those articles. As I have realized my mistake, I will have no objection if you permanently hide those edit summaries. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 07:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: You are also an admin and I have interacted with you many times. I have known about Twinkle from you, and learnt how to tag pages for deletion, when you posted me a message here. So, I am pinging you if you could give some time to review this request. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 07:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read the discussion with Girth Summit above. Are you able to make contributions to articles outside of cricket? I think I could consider discussing an unblock with other admins if you stay away from editing cricket pages until you can build some trust back. Sasquatcht|c 19:59, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasquatch: Sorry, I am late to response. Yes, I can stay away from cricket articles, but it will surely be very difficult for me. As I have said earlier, I want myself to be provided a second chance. I promise that I won't harass any editor, or either stalk anyone's edits for causing annoy from now on (even I will not do these if I am angry on someone). You can unblock me with a one-month trial, if you see me repeating these behaviours, you have the ability to re-block me. This is the first time I am blocked because of harassment or personal attacks, so I think I deserve a second or last chance. When I first came to know that I was blocked, I was confused about what my mistake actually was, as I am a relatively new user. But at one period of time, I understood that this and this were really unacceptable edit summaries. I promise that I will never engage in any edit-warring with Lugnuts or any users. If I am confused about the mistake in my edit, I will politely discuss in the appropriate talk page or the talk page of the relevant WikiProject. This will help me not to repeat those mistakes. I will just make an edit to any article whenever I receive any latest news about it, I will not edit any article by targeting any user or by stalking their edits. Moreover, the reason it's difficult for me to stay away from cricket is- I have two cricket articles nominated for Featured list, and one cricket article awaiting GA review. So, I have to work on those. In addition, I have recently created an article 2021 Arachas Super T20 Trophy, which is a cricket competition currently being held in Ireland. As this is an ongoing minor cricket event, I as the page creator have to update the match details, as anyone else probably won't update it. Whatever I edit, I assure you that I will never hound anyone's edits, try my best not to interact with them. So, I request you to think about the idea I am giving, before going to any decision. And as I am ashamed of my behaviour, I am requesting to hide those edit summaries, please hide those stupid edit summaries by me.
And Lugnuts, you have told me not to ping you, so I am not pinging you. But if you are reading these messages, then please edit my talk page for the last time to state if you have accepted my apology or not. I hope that you won't take it more personally. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 05:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasquatch:/A.A Prinon: I'm not a vindictive person, and see some encouraging signs in the unblock request. Per my last edit here, Prinon is already under conditions of a final warning, albeit for abusing multiple accounts. Instead of a topic-ban from all cricket-related articles, prehaps the best solution is a ban from international cricket tours, such as pages linked directly from International cricket in 2021 and other international seasons, for example. This would help this user to avoid any future potentional harassment issues. On the plus side, they seem to have done some good work in the FA/GA area. This is an area of work I seldom get involved in, apart from a few trinkets atop my userpage. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, it is overall difficult for me to stay away from cricket. And I am a bit younger as a Wikipedian, so if I edit articles related to national affairs or politics, it will not appear normal, I have vast knowledge about cricket, so I edit about this topic (and you might know the people of my native are very passionate about cricket, even if you ask a farmer of this country about cricket, he will be able to answer all). Thanks and Best. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 09:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback, Lugnuts. I think for now, it would be fair to implement your suggestion. To be crystal clear, A.A Prinon, this would be a conditional unblock subject to a subject ban as follows:
User is topic banned from all pages on international cricket tours, broadly construed, including such tours listed in International cricket in 2021 or any other year.
Is that clear enough for you, A.A Prinon? You would be free to edit other pages related to cricket, including cricket players and domestic tours, but you need to start showing some maturity. Please be very careful as violation of this condition could lead to another indefinite block. If it looks like you would be stepping into this topic ban at all, I would avoid editing the page directly and make a requested edit on the talk page. I will check in on the blocking admin if there are any other concerns, but I am otherwise satisfied that this represents a reasonable solution. Lugnuts, I assume you no longer feel the need for any sort of interaction ban at this point? Sasquatcht|c 17:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sasquatch - yes, happy with all that, including the need for no i-ban as of now. Thanks again. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 17:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasquatch: Yes, I agree to accept a topic ban from all pages on international tours. But, as you said, I can edit and create pages related to domestic competitions, cricketers, cricket teams (either international or domestic), cricket grounds and cricket lists. However the confusion I am having is- Can I edit articles related to 'A team tours"' such as- South Africa A cricket team in Zimbabwe in 2021, because A team tours are not actually international tours, those are just second tier tours. So, as I didn't have enough dispute with Lugnuts regarding A team tours, I think I will be able to edit those, right? And I also think that I will be able to edit pages related to cricket seasons, such as 2021 Bangladeshi cricket season etc. It will be helpful for me if you or Lugnuts inform me about this. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 02:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone could look at this during the morning (BD time) I'd be grateful. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 03:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please review our guidance at Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban. I would request that you stay away from any cricket pages that have an international tour aspect for now. You have seriously violated the community's trust and we can revisit this topic once you have shown that you have the maturity to contribute positively. I would interpret the topic ban to include A team tours or any international tours for now, whether Lugnuts was involved in editing those pages or not. You may edit articles on team seasons except where it infringes into international tours of any sort. If you come across any situation where you think you are confused as to whether you are violating the topic ban, please use edit requests on the talk page of the article. None of us have the time provide you specific guidance on every situation and part of building the trust back up is showing that you have the restraint to understand our policies and proper on-wiki interaction. Is that clear enough? Sasquatcht|c 07:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasquatch: Yes, I will surely try to rebuild the trust of the community. But, Lugnuts generally don't edit articles related to A team tours. So, I think I will be able to edit those. And yes, if it's urgent for me to edit any international tours' articles, I will make an edit request until I can regain the trust of everyone. Thanks and now please unblock me as it is now clear enough for me. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 07:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really your interpretation of what I just told you? Sasquatcht|c 07:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasquatch: Please do not misunderstand me. I clearly understand your words. You have advised me to stay away from any international tours including A team tours. I just wanted to ask if I will be able to edit those, as those aren't edited by Lugnuts. But as you have advised, I'm happy to adheare to the topic ban, will not edit any article related to international tours, until I regain the trust of Wikipedians. Thanks. — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 07:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sounds good. I will unblock. Once you have spent some time making good edits and showing positive interactions, the topic ban can be re-visited by making a post on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I would not do so for at least 6 months. Sasquatcht|c 07:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request on 08:19:50, 11 July 2021 for assistance on AfC submission by Abrish Naz
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Sasquatcht|c 18:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I have carefully reviewed your edits and it appears you are doing the what Girth Summit warned you about not doing. By no means am I saying Lugnuts acted perfectly, but the unblock was conditioned on the premise that you understood what you were being told but it does not appear you entirely do. After looking at the interaction timelines and your past behavior, it appears you are primarily the one being disruptive here. Sasquatcht|c 18:07, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sasquatch, This time I had not harassed any editor or made any personal attacks. I was not really stalking. But yes the interaction may give the impression that I was stalking. From the next time, I will be careful if Lugnuts has edited any page recently or not. I will be more careful from the next time. Please give me a last chance. From the next time I will not make such a edit that gives the impression of stalking. Please give me the last chance. thanks — A.A Prinon Leave a dialogue 02:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.gif){kind=small}
