User talk:Kalpesh Manna 2002: Difference between revisions

Hi Kalpesh Manna 2002! I noticed your contributions to 2019–20 locust infestation and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! SUN EYE 1 07:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kalpesh Manna 2002! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for adding see alsos to this article. However WP does not add see alsos when it’s relatively easy to read them in the first few paragraphs – when they’re already linked. So I have had to remove them. Do feel free to reread the policy on See Alsos. Please feel free to contribute more to the article. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I understood. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Venkat TL. Your recent edit(s) to the page United Progressive Alliance appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article’s talk page. If you would like to experiment, 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. Thank you. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The alliance in Bihar has been disbanded as you agree so. And Secular Progressive Front in Manipur has no member party except Congress according to Wikipedia page. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Belt and Road Initiative, 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changes had been made according to the map. Please look up. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2022 German coup d’état plot into List of coups and coup attempts. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia’s content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia’s licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you’ve copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Offensive Guard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yurivka. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It’s OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m JohnFromPinckney. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of international presidential trips made by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 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. If you have sources for these supposed trips (and I hope you do!) please add them. Otherwise, please don’t re-add the unsupported claims to the article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a custom that information on list articles doesn’t need sources immadiately. Next time add tag for a request for a citation. ThecentreCZ (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a pretty wacky “custom”, if it indeed exists. I’ve been here over 10 years and I have never heard such a claim. OTOH, I am acquainted with the custom of adding any old stuff to an article, without any citation, and never coming back again. Either of these customs are in contravention of WP:CITE, however, so it’s entirely appropriate to revert an unsourced addition (especially in case the editor is still around and can immediately add a good source while they’re reverting my reversion). Tagging is rather a last resort, as the tags are too often ignored (sometimes for years).

In the case of my first reversion, the addition of SLO had occurred more than 24 hours previously, the additions of BUL, CZE and TUK were even from the day before that. Even if there were some special exemption for lists (and why would there be?), I don’t think two days or even one day counts as “immediately”.

And in any case, the thing to do when adding content is to get the sources first. After all, if you don’t have the sources, how do you know what to add? Happy editing, both of you, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 13:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please stop changing the ‘pp‘ to ‘%’ in the infobox. If you keep doing it again and again, it will be considered disruptive editing. I believe you made these edits in good faith. Let me explain it to you. So, for example, if a party won 1% of votes the last election and 51% of votes in this election, that means they have a gain of 50 percentage points from the last election and not 50%. Increasing 1 by 50% gives 1.5, but when you increase it by 50 percentage points, it becomes 51. Hope this clears it up. Ok123l (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear, I am sorry it was actually another user who did this. I will strikethrough this now, I am very sorry for the mistake. Ok123l (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalpesh Manna 2002

You can study Wikipedia:Vandalism. This comment is due to your recent edit summary in Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 13:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalpesh Manna 2002 RightFax (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Subject: Vandalism Report[reply]

Dear Sir,

I am writing to bring to your attention a concerning issue of vandalism on Wikipedia. A user name, HelloWorld8800, has been continuously vandalizing the page “Kolkata Derby” and “List of Kolkata Derby Matches”. Despite efforts to revert the changes, the user continues to make malicious edits.
The vandalism includes “removing factual information” or “adding false content”. These actions compromise the integrity and accuracy of the page, which is detrimental to the platform’s reliability.
I have tried to engage with the user and revert the changes, but the behavior persists. As an administrator, I kindly request your assistance in addressing this issue. Your intervention would be greatly appreciated in preventing further vandalism and maintaining the quality of Wikipedia’s content.

Details of the vandalism:

– Page: Kolkata Derby and List of Kolkata Derby Matches

– Vandalizing User: HelloWorld8800

– Relevant diffs: The correct stats 402 matches, 138 win for EB and 135 for MB, I think he’s an EB supporter that’s why he’s changing the stats in favour of the team he supports.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Your efforts in maintaining Wikipedia’s integrity are invaluable.

Best regards,

RightFax.

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, 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:

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.

TylerBurden (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of current monarchs of sovereign states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 3rd Army Corps (Ukraine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4th Medical Battalion.

(Opt-out instructions.) —DPL bot (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately stop restoring unsourced content to Ukrainian military unit pages; this will be your final warning from me. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 20:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You must stop vandalising Ukrainian military units pages. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What I am doing is anti-vandalism. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 07:40, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—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, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please 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 demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 08:31, 12 September 2025 (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. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 08:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]