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). Visit the Teahouse 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! 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) 00:59, 28 November 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]

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) 00:46, 19 November 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:

• 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.

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]

If you wish to keep inserting your preferred versions of the bill, I would suggest trying to find some way to fix your grammar or making brushing up on American politics. "State legislators" do not refer to members of the House of Representatives. "Failed by a 54-54" is not a normal phrase. Additionally, the way you format citations is extremely odd. The author in your citations includes a multitude of odd, non author phrasing that appears to be copied from the websites that you found the source from. If you are unable to distiguish between the author name and a social media handle, you should not be editing the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Esolo5002 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit again on 2025 United States federal government shutdown. The content you are trying to add already appears in the article, the sources you have still have the same issues. You have removed and responded to talk page messages before so ignoring this does you no good. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look up at my edit notes. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care that much, to be honest. But I have fixed your grammar and citation style. Please ensure your citations and english language usage follow correct Wikipedia style. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And as a fellow editor we should ensure to include more accurate information in Wikipedia articles. Not less. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been reverted again. It is not my responsibility to fix your broken English or badly formatted citations. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations are from verifiable mainstream news sources like CNN, CBS, Fox and Politico. You can't claim they're in broken English. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need every instance of these votes. Please stop adding them. Either find consensus on the talk page or find a different area of Wikipedia to edit. Also, "failed in the Senate by votes of 55–44" is still not proper English. Your citations still have weird strings in the first and last name sections." Esolo5002 (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are simply news sources and their links, nothing else. Passing the budget is a political process, I'm just adding the votes without any further political commentry to keep things simple. The older vote counts are not added by me, I'll change their format as requested. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, citations must be formatted correctly. You must gain consensus. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're removing sourced informations from Wikipedia, so getting consensus should be your job. Secondly, if you want less information about a topic on Wikipedia then fine, don't read those. But should let them be there for others who can find it useful and informative. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to find consensus. More sources does not make a thing better. Especially when all you are adding is the same information. Do you understand why they are votings? There could be 30 of these failed votes. Is your plan really to add all 30 failed votes when the same people vote the same way every time?

"The Republican led Senate has continued to force votes on the Republican led continuing resolution. These votes have all failed, mostly along party lines. Bucking from their parties, Democratic Senators Cortez Masto and Fetterman and independent King have continued to vote for the bill. Republican Senator Paul has continued to vote against the bill"

This will be true no matter if there are 30 or 150 or 5 of the same votes. It never needs to be changed, it never needs to be updated. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree with you. Adding all the votes are not necessary. But we should atleast add the one last successful vote when all of these is over. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 16:16, 16 October 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. Pingrobb (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kalpesh. The report about you is at WP:AN3#User:Kalpesh Manna 2002 reported by User:Pingrobb (Result: ). You can reply there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring on 2025 United States federal government shutdown, by reverting multiple different users. Your block applies only to that article; you may edit the rest of Wikipedia as usual. Also this edit summary characterizing another experienced editor's good-faith contribution as "vandalism" is unacceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 00:46, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for the future, please do your research and get consensus before making possibly controversial page moves. As I stated in my edit summaries + on talk pages, Malagasy is the demonym for Madagascar, not the capital which is Antananarivo. If you had taken the time to look at basically any page related to Madagascar (even the pages you moved), but especially the main country page, you would have seen that. Please be more careful in the future. AG202 (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Sorry for misunderstanding in the talk page. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 15:29, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalpesh Manna 2002 vro check MB won trophies in 1952 and 1967 but tournament was voided, that doesn't mean MB didn't won the tournament ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 16:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the tournaments got voided then why they should be counted? Can you explain a little more? Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they got the trophy I am talking of trophy wins not champions ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 04:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kalpesh Manna 2002 the header is trophy counts not total champions ‍—⚰️NΛSΛ B1058 (TALK) 04:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kalpesh Manna 2002. I have re-added the note you removed from RJD row to follow consistent approach with other rejections. However, I have removed the extra reference that was added to RJD candidates in the Parties and Alliances table. Hope it is fine now. Dhruv edits (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You if think necessary you can add the note. No problem. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I very much appreciate your filling in of the references on the list. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. My pleasure. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Template:Nehru-Gandhi family tree shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be 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— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:06, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kalpesh Manna 2002! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 14:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of largest political parties, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Warner Bros. Discovery. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. ~2025-28056-21 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am an uninvolved admin, and I'm watching this situation as well. The IP editor is correct. We don't generally forecast future events in an infobox (as you have repeatedly done at Warner Bros. Discovery), and we certainly don't edit war to keep it in live pagespace when reasonably contested. BusterD (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I agree with you then. Let's wait until April, next year then. Watch what happens and then update the article on Wikipedia accordingly. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you made that same edit today? [1] Are we in April 2026? ~2025-28056-21 (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) (contributions) 19:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please update the section about the current state presidents and Legislative party leaders of the party in the presence in states and union territories part. ~2025-37947-38 (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of largest political parties, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 09:54, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#RfC on "Foreign players" tables in season articles regarding a topic in which you may be interested. Thank you and have a nice day. Lâm (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]