User talk:RITWIK MAHATA

Welcome!

Hello RITWIK MAHATA! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Chongkian (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Welcome

Hello RITWIK MAHATA and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to Kurmali language, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
Help pages
Tutorial
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! MaxA-Matrix💬 talk 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MaxA-Matrix,I have found my fault in my contributions to Kurmali language through corresponding mail from Wikipedia. RITWIK MAHATA (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Inertial_frame_of_reference, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

This was not a good edit. I have reverted it. Apart from the bad punctuation, it is not the set that describes, but the frames that each describe. Plural. - DVdm (talk) 09:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Greater Jharkhand (July 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Greater Jharkhand and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, RITWIK MAHATA! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kudmi Mahato, 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guiding. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 18:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my recent comment on this talk page regarding this @Ohnoitsjamie

@RITWIK MAHATAis deleting sourced citations to push his/her own narrative.

A user had provided 3 studies including census which essentially mentions Kudmi Mahatos as doubtlessly Hindus. In the recent study it is established that 99.8% of them practice Hinduism.

included this stating "The primary religion of the Kudmi Mahatos is Hinduism" with 3 reliable citations and he quickly deleted and changed it to "The Kudmi Mahatos demand Sarna" as if it's any helpful and explanatory to what beliefs and customs they follow.

If there's a religion category then it should be mentioned what religion the community follows. Not something like "they demand X". Even if they demand X it should be included that what religion they follow.

As far as I follow the demand of Sarna is a politicised move and not something inherently from the Kudmi society. Thus this page is exploited to gain political interests and to subvert the public from the actual truth by censoring information and including hypothesis.

Even previously many users had complained in the Talk Page against the vandalism of @RITWIK MAHATA

He reverts any edit which does not suit his political interests. Please look into this matter and help us. Austin-Crix (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

In any page after clicking "comparison between selected revisions" (in log in situation) I see the comparision instantly in source mode only and then it disappear but I can see the comparison between latest two revision (in log out situation) in source mode only. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 14:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably have to describe the problem you are seeing in more detail. Is "source mode only" relevant to something? If you see a difference in behavior between what you see when logged in and when not logged in, it could possibly be a userscript that you installed - but I don't see that you have installed any userscripts. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you posted on my talk page (you should have responded here) does not clarify anything at all.

It seems you are complaining about an apparent change in behavior; something that used to work and no longer does. Can you say how long ago this problem first appeared?

It also seems that you can see the behavior you expect when you are not logged in, but if you are logged in something appears only for a moment and is then possibly replaced by something else. One thing this may relate to is what you have chosen in your Preferences for your "skin" - the default skin, the one that is shown to users not logged in - was changed some months ago and it has far-ranging differences, many of which experienced users have refused by setting their skin preference back to something like "Vector legacy".

The only place that I know of where "comparison between selected revisions" is shown is in an article's revision history. Or are you seeing this button somewhere else?

You keep mentioning "source mode only", so I'm wondering if there is some user interface conflict happening when you are normally in visual editor mode. Have you set a preference on your Preferences|Editing page for "Editing mode:"?

After the display you were asking for appears and disappears, what remains? Does the window close? Are you left back looking at the revision history page?

I realize this level of detail I am asking about may seem frustrating to you, but few people complain about something like this. Answers to these questions may help figure out if there is a general problem or if there is something specific to your situation that is causing it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Greater Jharkhand

Hello, RITWIK MAHATA. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Greater Jharkhand, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Greater Jharkhand

Hello, RITWIK MAHATA. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greater Jharkhand".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for guiding Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 15:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

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.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

Case: In Candidate section of 2024 Jharkhand Legislative assembly election previously there are candidates from two alliances. Later I added other two parties/alliances who are going to contest in atleast half of the assembly constituencies with reliable source (website of Election Commission of India). One party JLKM is going to contest in 74 and the other alliance JANMAT in 41 out of 81 assembly constituencies. Some other editor reverted those edit with their own logic. Then I reverted their edit with edit summary that -Don't remove sourced content.That time I wasnot familiar with 3rr rule. Then I create new topic in talk page of that article to discuss. But there also they argue with same logic. So there was no consequence about the adding of candidates of these parties/alliances. Then I asked about it in help desk on 1st November.One editor replies that I can add candidates name with sourced. So, I added those candidates name from those two parties/alliances with sourced. Then they again reverted my edits with their own logic. Then I reverted their edits commenting don't remove sourced content. Now I am blocked with the allegation of edit warring. Now, I am requesting to review it.

Decline reason:

Yes, it does indeed look like you violated WP:EW. I don't see where you got consensus for your changes and you make no claim you did. It looks like you don't understand how to navigate WP:EW and contentious topics, so it would be a mistake to lift this block. Yamla (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please do not modify (or remove) declined unblock requests for your currently active block. You are free to make a new request and a different admin will review it. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

I have no edit history after the article being designated as contentious topic.Link about a claim in previous unblock request Wikipedia:Help desk#November 1-candidates]] Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to review

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

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

Request reason:

In Candidate section of 2024 Jharkhand Legislative assembly election previously there are candidates from two alliances. Later I added other two parties/alliances who are going to contest in atleast half of the assembly constituencies with reliable source (website of Election Commission of India). One party JLKM is going to contest in 74 and the other alliance JANMAT in 41 out of 81 assembly constituencies. Some other editor(@FlyJet777, @Sachin126) reverted those edit with their logic that they are not major contender (didn't gave any any source to their claim), have no MLA in previous assembly election. There is no such rule for listing candidate and that content was reliable sourced. So, I reverted their edit with edit summary that -Don't remove sourced content. Then I create new topic in talk page of that article to discuss. But there also they argue with same logic. So there was no consequence about the adding of candidates of these parties/alliances. Then I asked about it in help desk on 1st November-link:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 November 1 desk#November 1, subsection:Candidates. One editor(@Shantavira) replies that I can add candidates name with reliable source. So, I added those candidates name from those two parties/alliances with source(Official website of Election Commission of India). Firsttime I was blocked by 3rr rule by @Daniel Case. 3rr rule is not compatible with these edit of me (Restoring deleted content from reliable sources). Some editors complained @Daniel Case. Without proper review he/she(@Daniel Case) misjudged me. Then I pointed out his/her wrong claims. Then the editor,@Ankur0745 admitted his mistake. Here the conversation in @Daniel Case's talk page. Also, the editor, @MrMkG complained to @Daniel Case with false allegation. I asked him/her in the talk page, link:Talk:2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election#JANMAT. But he/she gave no answer.

Now, I am blocked with the allegation of " Edit warring: continued after block, in article in contentious topic aera " by @Daniel Case. I have no edit history in that article after the article being designated as contentious topic. I am requesting to unblock me and let me continue to give my service to wikipedia by constructive edit with reliable sources. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 15:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of the edits you have made since your first block of 29 October suggest that you are willing to follow Wikipedia's edit warring policy in the future. The article has always been covered by WP:CTOP, due to its subject matter, regardless of when the banners were added. In any case your current block is a regular edit warring block and did not need the CTOP machinery for its justification. EdJohnston (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request to review

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

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

Request reason:

In Candidate section of 2024 Jharkhand Legislative assembly election previously there are candidates from two alliances. Later I added other two parties/alliances who are going to contest in atleast half of the assembly constituencies with reliable source (website of Election Commission of India). One party JLKM is going to contest in 74 and the other alliance JANMAT in 41 out of 81 assembly constituencies. Some other editor(@FlyJet777, @Sachin126) reverted those edit with their logic that they are not major contender (didn't gave any any source to their claim), have no MLA in previous assembly election. There is no such rule for listing candidate.That content was from reliable source. So, I reverted their edit with edit summary that -Don't remove sourced content. Then I create new topic in talk page of that article to discuss. But there also they argue with same logic. So there was no consequence about the adding of candidates of these parties/alliances. Then I asked about it in help desk on 1st November-link:Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2024 November 1 desk#November 1, subsection:Candidates. One editor(@Shantavira) replies that I can add candidates name with reliable source. So, I added those candidates name from those two parties/alliances with source(Official website of Election Commission of India). Firsttime I was blocked by 3rr rule by @Daniel Case. 3rr rule is not compatible with these edit of me (Restoring deleted content from reliable sources). Some editors complained @Daniel Case. Without proper review he/she(@Daniel Case) misjudged me. Then I pointed out his/her wrong claims. Then the editor,@Ankur0745 admitted his mistake. Here the conversation in @Daniel Case's talk page. Also, the editor, @MrMkG complained to @Daniel Case with false allegation. I asked him/her in the talk page, link:Talk:2024 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election#JANMAT. But he/she gave no answer.

Now, I am blocked with the allegation of " Edit warring: continued after block, in article in contentious topic aera " by @Daniel Case. I have no edit history in that article after the article being designated as contentious topic.

After my first block (by 3rr rule)(that time I was not familiar with this rule) I asked in help desk (I have mentioned this above). All the edits after my first block are according to the suggestion of help desk. This time I made 6 edits by reverting with proper edit summary. Restoring deleted content from reliable sources is not edit warring. I am requesting to review those 6 edits(by reverting) of me and to unblock me and let me continue to give my service to wikipedia by constructive edit with reliable sources.

Decline reason:

You say "Restoring deleted content from reliable sources is not edit warring". I disagree it is edit warring. There are a few exceptions to the rules - see Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions - but that is not one of them. I am declining your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 18:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RITWIK MAHATA, filing duplicate unblock requests will be of no use. It would be better if you go back to the talk page of Jharkhand Election and read the entire discussion again.

I, and many other editors have repeatedly emphasized on the fact that JLKM or Janmat alliance parties are NOT major contenders. There is absolutely no point in adding candidates of parties like BMP who receive merely 400-500 votes. These parties also haven't won any seat in the past. A party which has not won a seat cannot be considered a major contender. Your edits only made the article crowded and hence, were removed, irrespective of sources. Wikipedia is not a directory that everything needs to be put into articles. I hope this helps. FlyJet777 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ritwik, three admins have now declined as many unblock requests of yours in roughly 24 hours. And yet you make a fourth repeating the same arguments that they rejected (OK, one was a templated decline). In this situation, when I regularly reviewed unblock requests, I almost always revoked talk page access for the duration. And I was hardly alone among admins in doing this.

As the blocking admin, I must leave it up to a reviewing admin's discretion what steps to take. Daniel Case (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed their reason to decline in the next review request. You blocked me without proper review (as before [1]) of my those 6 edits(by reverting) according to the suggestion of help desk. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 19:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only situations in which the content of the edits matter when assessing a complaint of edit warring are those narrow ones outlined under 3RRNO. None of them apply here. The proper course of action would have been to discuss this on the talk page without making any reverts at all, and, if you didn't prevail in changing enough minds, end there. If you feel that this is just an unspoken rule, you should have challenged them to cite it, and then as I suggested should have asked on the India noticeboard if someone could find whatever discussion led to this. If you feel that policy needs to be changed (and you have not at any point cited any policy reason why including that level of detail (which some might call cruft) would be beneficial to the project enough to overcome WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which FlyJet cited), the way to do it is most emphatically not by revert warring until you get your way.

The fact that you went right back to making those edits after your first block expired shows you have a serious WP:IDHT and/or WP:CIR problem, both of which have often led to multiple long blocks for edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After my first block expired I asked in the help desk. Link is in the above template. Discussion is archieved but accessible. Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 20:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't include in your help desk request the underlying conflict: not the sourcing but the fact that regardless of how reliable the source the parties you wished to add did not meet a local notability criterion. So I don't see that help desk request as in any way probative here. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting to review the block matter. What is a local notability criterion for a political alliance/party? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 08:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case

You didn't include in your help desk request the underlying conflict

Was my question in help desk incomplete to answer? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 10:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your imperfect English, as I have already noted, may be part of your problem. You are relying on the help desk answer to, basically, the wrong question. Reliable sourcing does not guarantee notability. (also, see WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:SUSTAINED, which appear to me to be relevant to your issue). Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight

Details of my all 4 edits(by reverting) on 2024-11-03---

1st edit:

@MrMkG added party name JKLM beside 74 candidates name. It was wrong. It is JLKM. That's why I reverted it.

My edit summary:JLKM ( not JKLM) is not in any alliance. So, there is no need to mention party name beside candidate name.

2nd edit:

I removed party name and color beside each candidate of JLKM as this party is not in any alliance and party name, party color already existed in the above of that candidate column. I added a third alliance that was removed.

My edit summary:Don't remove sourced content. If you want something should be changed first talk in talk page. JLKM is not in any alliance. So, there is no need to mention party name and color beside every candidate name.

3rd & 4th edit:

An IP user removed link of a file. That's why I removed it.

@Daniel Case blocked me saying it edit warring. He had misjudged(without proper review) me once before. I figured that out.

@PhilKnight why is it edit warring?

Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 06:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 15:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight@Daniel Case Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight How was it edit-warring (according to @Daniel Case)? Ritwik Mahata^t@lk 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2025–26 I-League" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025–26 I-League has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 3 § 2025–26 I-League until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]