User talk:MrMkG

Hi MrMkG! I noticed your contributions 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! ❯❯❯   S A H A 09:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the edit you made at Bharatiya Janata Party. Please know that we allow content that are supported by reliable sources. But this page is related to a Contentious topics. Pages related to this contentious topic are subject to additional rules as authorized by the Arbitration Committee. You must have got a notice when you started editing the page. Please follow the directions. Another revert without discussing might be counted as Wikipedia:Edit warring. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 03:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading the guidelines and polices. You allege that I'm making "unconstructive" edits and that my edits "appear to be disruptive". Now you need to specific exactly which one of the policies you claim that I have violated because I can not see any reasonable basis for this accusation.

When you say "we allow content that is supported by reliable sources" and in the same breath say "but this page is related to contentious topics". What is this supposed to mean? That it gives you the right to remove these reliable sources? I can not imagine that being one of any reasonable interpretations of "contentious topics".

My sources are as solid as they get since they are academic sources published by the likes of Oxford University Press and Routledge. Whereas you did not even provide a reason for removing them.

Next, there is the curious case of the "notice" (Template:Editnotices/Page/Bharatiya Janata Party). I did encounter it beforehand as a pop-up so let us assess some facts about it.

1. In your editing summary ([1]) you claim "It states that any contentious changes are needed to be discussed at talk page first".

1.1. The notice does not say this.

1.2. Fixing a editing glitch that hid a text and adding more reliable sources to support the text is far less "contentious" than removing these reliable sources and the associated text itself.

1.3. You did not apply the claimed discuss first standard on yourself.

2. In the same editing summary, you say "I am aware that we are not supposed to make more than one revert within 24 hours. But it is allowed in limited circumstances."

2.1. The notice does say this.

2.2 The revert is within 24 hours of your previous revert.

2.3. You are claiming the "limited circumstances" exemption. The notice redirects to a page which lists 8 kinds of exemptions of which you have not specified which one you are taking.

2.3.1. The exemptions are "self revert" (not applicable), own userpage (not applicable), banned users (not applicable), obvious vandalism like page blanking and offensive words (not applicable), copyright (not applicable), illegal content like cp or piracy (not applicable), bad content in biographies (not applicable), spam (not applicable). Please specify which one you're taking. None of them are applicable and you can not take such an exemption.

Lastly, let us take a look at two simple facts about what might or might not be counted as "edit warring".

1. I made one revert of your edit. You made two reverts of my edit.

2. I did not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours. You made 2 reverts within 24 hours with full knowledge of the notice.

MrMkG (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMkG first of all you didn't need to come to my talk page at all when the discussion is already going here. And you have served me with multiple spam notices. Now answering you point wise.

• Content supported with reliable sources are allowed but when you are making large scale changes to a page that comes under contentious topics, you are required to bring it to talk page, discuss it first and gain a consensus. Then make changes according to it. There is absolutely no doubt that Oxford is a good source.
• Edit warring is not only when you revert only one person's edit. I can clearly see that you have reverted other editor who reverted you here.
• 1st revert of yours-Revision as of 01:41, 27 September 2023
• 2nd revert of yours Revision as of 02:24, 28 September 2023

Now this is not within 24 hours but just after 24 hours that also counts as a violation. Your mistake is that you should have initiated a discussion only after you were revrted first if not then definitely after second. But you choose to revert my edit and term it as dubious. So you are at fault here. You have already judged that no exemptions are applicable. Let me tell you which one is applicable. Because you are the one constantly re-reverting your version without addressing other editors concern will count as you spamming. This is the 24-hour revert exemption. Every notice doesn't say to discuss. Because the contentious topics are always discussed as per rules. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 01:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are accusing me of serving you "spam notice" and you are taking the spam exemption for not following the page notice of not reverting more than once in 24 hours.

Are you claiming that the "disruption" is that I am a "spammer" and that I am "spamming"? The exemption page (WP:3RRNO) links to a page detailing what is called spam (WP:ADS) and none of them can be reasonably applied. It mentions "advertisement masquerading as articles", "external link spamming" and "adding references for promotion" as types of spam. Which one are you accusing me of doing? This is completely untenable and a false accusation. I demand an immediate apology and a full retraction.

Show me the place where it is written that changes in "contentious topics" must be discussed first, I have scoured through the wikipedia pages about contentious topics and have not found it anywhere. The change was also not large scale by any stretch of imagination, it was a minor glitch fix and couple references for a pre-existing text. You yourself did not see the need for discussion first when you removed the pre-existing text afterwards which is a greater change.

The other person had reverted me in the past had either not read the sources or read the wrong source so I quoted the source and it was over there. He or she did not contest it. Even if we consider that as a "revert" for this incident, you yourself have done two reverts (Revision as of 14:18, 27 September 2023 and Revision as of 03:09, 28 September 2023) and unlike me have not abided by the 24 hour rule.

Your edit was and remains dubious because you did not provide a reason to object to the content. I have started the discussion on the talk page that you demanded but you have still not provided a reason. Please go to the talk page (Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party) and provide a reason immediately so that the discussion you have been pining for can occur. MrMkG (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMkG Just to clarify I didn't call you spammer. I said said you spammed (means repeated) your edit despite getting reverted twice. Now, there is no reason to drag it further since another user has already started a disscussion on the same thing. I had already given an example when similar thing was discussed before at BJP's talk page. I also pinned Kautilya who said what I am saying today. You want to put those things so its you who need to gain a consensus. I can't propose on what others want. Therefore I would request you to kindly give your points there in that discussion. Dragging this thing won't get us to any conclusion. Rather discussing and gaining consensus will. Hope you understand. Rest depends on you. If you want to continue this, please do so, but to let you know I am not. I will be more happy to see you at Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#BJP is a right-wing to far-right political party rather here. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a comment there. The other person and me are in agreement. Mr. Shaan Sengupta, you have not provided a objection to the content yourself. So there is no one opposing it and no one has provided a reason for objection. Can you clarify on the talk page that the content can be restored and that you will not revert further? MrMkG (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you took the spam word the other way. By spam I meant you repeated yourself at multiple places. Anways, I won't drag that. Since this seems to be done shall I now close it here? Or you can. Rest content related thing I will e explain my point there. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spam means unwanted bulk content for advertising or malicious purposes such as spam mail. The page detailing spam on wikipedia (WP:ADS) defines it in the same fashion.

Nevertheless, I still need the clarification on whether you will revert or not if the content is restored now. This is essential for resolution. Either you need to give a content related "policies and guidelines" based objection or you need to give clarification that you won't revert further because there is no one else objecting. MrMkG (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In have already put forward my point there. I only meant repeating by spam and not that. Sad that I forgot it has this meaning too.Shaan Sengupta^Talk 11:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
• 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. El_C 16:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @MrMkG. Please be gentle and follow WP:CIVILITY because I don't want to get into a conflict like last time. Try to keep your reply to the point and short.
You recently made an edit at Bangladesh genocide in Revision as of 11:03, 25 October 2023 and said that targetting of Bengali Hindus is nowhere mentioned in the source. I quote your edit summary The source doesn't say this, one can say disproportionate (still many problems, negationist) but not primarily But I just read 1-3 pages and can see it being mentioned and explained after that too. Can you explain your claims? Shaan Sengupta^Talk 09:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Sengupta please do not follow me to other articles, it is very unpleasant. Now that you are here once again, read the source again and understand it. It does not say it was Bengali Hindus primarily killed. It says the Pakistani administration saw Bengalis as having been "corrupted" by "Hindu culture" (one of the reasons for the prejudice) and killed them indiscriminately.

Of those killed most were naturally Muslims as they were the majority of Bengalis in Bangladesh. The source mentions sub-categories of victims as "intellectuals", "university students", "members of Awami League", "urban poor", "Hindus", "police personnel" and "anyone with the capacity to rebel". It is therefore very wrong to say "primarily Bengali Hindu" as it denies recognition to all others. It should either be "Bengalis" as it is the primary category or all the sub-categories. Since sub-categories are complex, it is preferred to mention solely the primary category in the infobox. Please understand that this is a sensitive topics.

I plan on editing this article in the future. There are many things wrong with it. As an example the lower estimate is being taken from rejected work of Sarmila Bose (who denies the genocide) and CIA figures (who shared complicity). Do you plan to revert me at every step I make? If so I am unable to proceed. MrMkG (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2024 Indian general election in Jammu and Kashmir, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMkG Can you please make a seat sharing map for LDF Kerala in 2024 Lok Sabha election? XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XYZ 250706 I don't know how to make maps. I just put out a request asking for a new 2024 Lok Sabha map because there has been delimitation in Assam and Jammu and Kashmir so the shapes of some constituencies are different. MrMkG (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anant Patel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anant Patel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 14:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a reference as a proof Horace Dendy (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source Paragraph-1: Interpretation. This section handles the definitions of distinct terms applied in laying out the legislation. Paragraph-2: Disqualification on grounds of defection. This section deals with the crux of the legislation, specifying factors on which a member could be disqualified from the Parliament or the State assembly. Provisions in para 2.1(a) provide disqualification of a member if he or she "voluntarily gives up the membership of such political party", whereas paragraph 2.1(b) provisions, addresses a situation when a member votes or abstains from any crucial voting contrary to the directive circulated by his/her respective political party. Paragraph 2.2 states that any member, after being elected as a representative of a certain political party, shall be disqualified if he/she joins any other political party after the election. Paragraph 2.3 states that a nominated member shall be disqualified if he/she joins any political party after six months from the date he/she takes his seat. Laurent Jack (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurent Jack, I already know this. Are you unable to understand what it says? Under paragraph 2.1(a) and 2.2, they would be disqualified. MrMkG (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, I was wondering why you felt the sections tag broke up the reading flow on this article? As you can see around Wikipedia, section headings are standard practice. In this case, another editor had specfically requested section headings. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Wikipedia articles look like. It's only a brief summary that I added. Breaking it into random sections breaks the flow of reading so I oppose it. Sections can be made when more is written. MrMkG (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. The sections aren't random, and only two were added. Another experienced editor had added the sections tag. Anyway, it isn't a particularly big deal, and as you say, sections can be added later if needed, so no worries. Happy editing. Heavy Grasshopper (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saira Shah Halim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dialysis. 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) 06:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Sanjog Waghere. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability, it has too many problems of language or grammar and failed WP:NPOL. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Youknowwhoistheman I am making these articles based on WP:NBIO. In it, WP:NPOL is given as an additional criteria to fall onto if basic criteria requirements isn't immediately met, there is no need for it if basic criteria is already established. The person has full length articles profiling him, explaining who he is, his history, etc from major newspapers like Indian Express, FPJ, Loksatta, etc. I haven't written down most of it, me or someone else can do it later but I have attached four of the references so the requirement for having multiple independent reliable secondary sources giving not trivial and significant coverage is met.

Explain what exactly the problem is. There are no grammar or language issues. I have now moved the references to the correct places. MrMkG (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Saira Shah Halim is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saira Shah Halim (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MrMkG I hope you are doing fine. I am currently working on the 1999 Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly election#Results by constituency section and I am here to request you to join with me in filling up the data from the [2] in the table. I have already reformatted the constituencies district wise and the table can be found here: User:456legend/Sandbox/Andhra. If you wish to join with me, please continue to edit on User:456legend/Sandbox/Andhra, which can finally be placed on the main article. Thank you. 456legendtalk 06:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll try to help. I am more interested in the present general election but I'll help out there from time to time. MrMkG (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saira Shah Halim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dialysis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madarchod tere baap ka website hai saala bar bar dekh rhe shi edit ko bhi vandalise kr rha hai madarchod. Bihar general election se JDU ko kyu hata rha hai 16 sansad hai unke. Apna kaam se kaam rkho na kyu aukat se zyada uchchl rha hai? Wicked Sunnnnnyyyyy (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG. Thank you for your work on Mathura Prasad Mahato. MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

add the relevant infobox as well

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the reliable sources continuously publishing about LJP. Everyone knows Chirag Paswan. Then how we can say it's not a major party. XYZ 91973 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new party that's contesting 5 seats out of 40 in an alliance and has no presence in the state assembly. Sources publish news about all parties, not everyone can be included. Pretending LJP(RV) is more important than RJD is farcical. MrMkG (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But LJP is a state party in Bihar. And there is union minister from this party. It's third position in terms of vote in last assembly election. XYZ 91973 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean behind NDA and MGB XYZ 91973 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of state parties in Bihar. People from many tiny parties have become ministers, it doesn't mean anything. LJP(RV) is also a splinter of LJP which doesn't exist anymore.

In terms of vote share it wasn't even third, NDA and MGB are alliances not parties. Even after contesting all seats, it was 5th, behind parties that contesting 1/4th of the seats.

The info box should be based on whom the contest is largely between. RJD is the main opposition whether it's state or national in Bihar, they are contesting 23 seats of the opposition alliance and had far higher voter share in the previous election. MrMkG (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay XYZ 91973 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanjay Chauhan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG. Thank you for your work on Menka Devi Singh. Voorts, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

voorts (talk/contributions) 03:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG. Thank you for your work on Devendra Yadav. MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

make sure to add the relevant infobox

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MrMkG (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG. Thank you for your work on Janardan Dehury. MPGuy2824, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

please add the relevant infobox

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. MrMkG (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG,

Thank you for creating Awadhesh Prasad.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Good Start!, please add specific categories and you may cite more reliable sources. Cheers!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dcotos (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Omkar Markam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dindori (Vidhan Sabha constituency).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG,

Congress party has officially decalred candidates for 14 seats in West Bengal. Please check this links, Link for 13 candidates name : https://twitter.com/INCSandesh/status/1779681346593690112/photo/3 Link for 14th candidate name : https://twitter.com/INCSandesh/status/1781692683372941347

They haven't withdrew their candidate from Ghatal, There is no official announcement of it, If there is any, Please provide me the link for that.

If someone checks for Congress candidates in 2024 Indian general election in West Bengal, they will assume that Congress party is contesting only 12 seats and also they won't find all the 14 candidate names. As a wikipedian we have to add information as it is. We should add all candidates name of the alliance, we should not be selective about it.

As of now i am reverting your edit. If you think my reasons for reverting your edit is not good for you, you can revert my edit. Sachin126 (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have withdrawn from Ghatal, see [3].

I will give you a counterpoint about the other 2. The page tells about the alliance candidates. If someone goes there and sees it, they will think the alliance is fighting between themselves or doesn't exist in those particular seats when it's not true. They also will not be able to tell which candidate is alliance backed when it's very clear, there was a problem between AIFB and INC when Forward Bloc deviated and put a candidate in Purulia which was given to INC, the rest of the parties also back INC there. In retaliation INC also put up a candidate in Cooch Behar but that was given to AIFB. (Cooch Behar was also in phase 1) Both are separate candidates, therefore keeping it in a side note is better for clarity. MrMkG (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English link [4]. @Sachin126. MrMkG (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editing of all the constituency results should be stopped by you. It is a vandalism. If you don't stop such edits, then you might be blocked permanently from editing. VNC200 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

?? MrMkG (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are repeatedly editing all the Lok Sabha constituency candidates name. Please don't do it. It is a type of disruptive editing, for doing this you might be blocked from editing. VNC200 (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Candidate names need to be added and honorifics aren't added. Go do something else, stop making false accusations of vandalism and go away from my talk page. MrMkG (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until and unless the results are declared officially by the Election Commission of India, nothing such can be editing now at all. So I request to avoid such kind of editing until the result is declared. I hope you understand. VNC200 (talk) 13:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, go ahead remove all 2024 ones instead of trying to suggest BJP won/is in front in all of them. MrMkG (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You remove all the candidate list of present 2024 Elections, particularly in the West Bengal state. No required of candidate list. It can be published after the result is out. VNC200 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think they are good and informational. If you have so much problem in the West Bengal ones then you remove them all, instead of making it BJP preferential. MrMkG (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I have only made the major changes because of the particular areas, were BJP and AITC won previously . You can check my edits. I am reverting all your edits for now, and please do not change them again until the result is declared. Thank you. VNC200 (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is true. I have seen your edits. You are putting BJP in areas they haven't won. You can remove them all if you want, I won't get in the way. Otherwise don't revert my edits. MrMkG (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do such edits. The candidate list would be according to the result in 2019. The constituencies where AITC won, there the first candidate would be of AITC and where BJP won, there the candidates would be of BJP. VNC200 (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert your move on Shreya Verma back to draft space? It does not pass NPOL or GNG at this point. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MrMkG,

Thank you for creating Laxmikant.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Kindly improve categorisation.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Vanderwaalforces}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There I was simply bringing to light how some pro-party people have hijacked the article and I commented about the same cautioning the admins against such spin-doctors, however the comment immediately got deleted. I am not sure what policy it violated. I am new. I don't intend to be an editor here. Just bringing this to your notice hoping you know better. Thank you. 2409:40E1:0:51F5:9C3F:28FF:FE62:77C5 (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]