User talk:Bongthinker

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added a welcome message to the top of this page that gives a great deal of information about Wikipedia. I hope you find it useful.

Additionally, I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily in collaboration.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss the matter on the relevant talk page.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Per , , , and and per Talk:North_Korea#North Korea as a communist state would you be willing to voluntarily stop editing Wikipedia pages with the claim that North Korea is not communist but instead to seek consensus on the article talk pages? If you are not willing to stop, the next step will be a report at WP:ANI.

BTW, you may find the following to be helpful: WP:1AM. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

that was just once. when it was reverted, i didn't even undo the revert. why r u getting so angry? Bongthinker (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ah. Another person who claims to be able to tell what my internal emotional state is through the internet. How very original.

Are you or are you not willing to stop making edits that claim that North Korea is not communist? It's a simple question. Either you agree to change your behavior or you don't. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

again, why r u acting as if i am vandalizing the page with edits like "North Korea is not communist"? that was only once, and when the edit was reverted, i didn't even undo it, i didn't even touch the page. the matter was resolved already, why r u digging it up? i already sought consensus on the talk page of "North Korea" article, and I already learnt why DPRK is communist. why r u digging up these controversies? that question is invalid because it implies I am repeatedly doing the act and vandalizing, which is clearly not the case, that was literally just one time, i didn't even undo any reverted edits after that. i recommend, not to dig up these resolved disputes and start fresh controversies. at least don't involve me in it, cuz i have already resolved these disputes with the editors. Bongthinker (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

So you now agree that the DPRK is communist? Just answer yes or no, please. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

1). it's not specifically "now" that i agree, i already agreed long back, u didn't seem to read my convos in the talk page

2). yes Bongthinker (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Joshua Jonathan. An edit that you recently made to Vedic period seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:39, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

it's not a test, i was clear about it. i deliberately made the edit, because I don't want people learning colonial hoax propagated by some worthless colonizer with superiority complexes. the IE migrants did NOT bring Vedic culture to India, i request removal of misinformation like that. please give me reliable proof that proves that these migrants wrote Vedas, I can otherwise provide tons of strong counterevidence to prove this notion wrong. kindly stop spreading misinformation about my culture, it is offensive. kindly don't teach us Indians about our own history, i find it as over-smart. thank you! Bongthinker (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page 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, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days in order to make edits related to two subtopics: (1) Indian military history, or (2) social groups, explicitly including caste associations and political parties related to India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal.

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.

Ekdalian (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

is being a mouthpiece of colonial narratives and propaganda a "purpose" of Wikipedia? i know u r not pointing out mistakes in my editing, but this needs clarification. i have just removed colonial narrative from the IE articles. the colonial narrative was that "IE migrants composed the Vedic texts", i simply got rid of that. i don't understand why Wikipedia is a mouthpiece of only Western narratives, while Indian native narratives are swiftly ignored. Bongthinker (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a procedural revert just in order to follow our rules and policies! You may discuss this on the article talk page once you become an extended confirmed user. As per the new rules on such contentious topics, you are not supposed to discuss anything related to social group and caste until you become an extended confirmed user! Anyways, please note that such major changes require consensus on the article talk page; read WP:CONSENSUS! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

i haven't made any changes to caste-related articles. i didn't even remove claims of migration. there's no reason to deny that migration happened. what i am removing is the claim that these migrants from the steppes wrote the Vedic texts, that's all i am removing. i find it offensive, that my culture and religion are branded as foreign and accredited to foreigners rather than the natives of the Indian subcontinent. i am sure that an Arab Muslim would also find it offensive if Islam is labeled as foreign and non-Arabic, similarly as an Indian Hindu, I find it offensive that Vedic Hinduism is being labeled foreign and non-Indian. i don't like religions to be targeted. and, as of now, i haven't found any reliable consensus saying that migrants wrote Vedas, the consensus approving this migrant view are colonial-era consensus, which was made with the objective to disregard Indians as an inferior race and take credit even for the culture and religion they found superior to European culture. is colonial-era jargon your reliable consensus? i expect better. Wikipedia seems to only act as a mouthpiece of the West, deliberately ignoring the voice of India and Indians, the voice of the natives. come on, Vedic Hinduism is our culture, why are we not allowed to say anything about our own culture? why is a third party supposed to teach us about our own culture? i find it offensive, and over-smart Bongthinker (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

You have had the policy regarding when you will be permitted to edit on this topic. This isn't open to negotiation here, regardless of your justifications for your edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

doesn't mean u can get away disrespecting my religion like that. if u don't like India, u can pack your bags and get out. Indian courts are also ready to ban Wikipedia in India. u cannot disrespect my religion.

here, u r calling Vedic Hinduism a foreign religion and attributing its credit to Central Asian migrants (despite the counterevidence)

second, in the Wikipedia article of "Jai Shri Ram", you've blatantly disrespected the slogan by attributing it to anti-Muslim communal violence (and before u go edit that out, I have got screenshots of the disrespectful statement that were made there).

who gave u authority to insult my religion? why cant u learn to coexist? always insulting other religions, always intervening in others' culture and history like an imperialist. just learn to coexist. it's not that hard.

also, i didn't ask u, nor am i talking to u, i was talking to Mr. Ekdalian Bongthinker (talk) 13:21, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

With an attitude like that, you may well find that you aren't here long enough to edit on the topic at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

look who's talking about attitude? you've been rudely talking to me for long now, intervening like a third party. u r neither Indian, nor Hindu, so why do u think u know Hinduism more than an actual practitioner of Hinduism? a lot of Hindus themselves deny the belief that IE migrants wrote the Vedas. i am NOT denying migration theory, i am denying the belief that these steppe migrants composed the Vedas. that's a colonial belief, your own experts have largely got rid of that belief. if u rly think that IE migrants wrote the Vedas, prove it to me. NOT by parroting what some colonial mouthpiece scholar said, but by logic. prove it logically that migrants wrote the Vedas. then i will provide my counterevidence. if u cannot accept the truth, then stop talking to me. I've never talked to u by myself, it was YOU who was constantly intervening like a third party, insulting me, and calling me out for defending my own religion. Wikipedia seems to be Hinduphobic, blatant disrespect of Hinduism and no action even taken.

"Jai Shri Ram" is said to be a slogan used for anti-Muslim communal violence. the Kashmiri Pandit genocide of 1990 was disrespectfully denied and downplayed as "exodus" (parroting a random expert). Vedic Hinduism is called a foreign religion and non-Indian. yet the rules aren't applying here. no changes are being made to these offensive pieces of text. what is seriously wrong with Wikipedia? now they've stooped down to Hinduphobia, but if a conservative Hindu shows Islamophobia, they're gonna get indefinitely banned from here. what is this hypocrisy?

also, can u stop talking to me now? i never talked to u in the first place, nor do i want to do it now. u may first get rid of that ego and misbehavior before u talk to me. Bongthinker (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2026 (UTC)