Hello. First, please read conflict of interest and paid editing for information on required formal disclosures. You must disclose your relationship with this development.
The information contained is supported by reliable sources. Even if the information is old, it is still correct, as it covers the history of the project, not the current state. Wikipedia articles contain all information found in reliable sources, good or bad. If there is a reason based in Wikipedia policy to remove something, it should be discussed on the Talk:Kolkata West International City.
The information which are given on the delay & opposition section in Kolkata west International city’s Wikipedia page are wrong & old.I’m a current employee of this organisation that’s why want to make the changes. Bdweeja (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bdweeja As an employee of the company, you are prohibited from editing the article. Your only avenue is to propose changes on the Talk page, so that a non-connected editor can implement or decline. Also you must first declare your paid status. See WP:PAID. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong reason?
You recently reverted an IP's edit with summary 'Rv addition of a racial slur'. But the actress seems to really have played the role as per the article. Maybe reversion is still valid for 'unconstructive edit', but not for racial slur? ExclusiveEditorNotify Me!14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.
You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE
The Sydney Electric Train Society page needs to be cleaned of the current defamatory content against this organisation. You are restoring a page containing many falsehoods and politically motivated hate content against SETS. I suspect its being written by members or associates of a rival rail preservation group that split of SETS in 1997 (Historic Electric Traction) to cause reputational damage to the current SETS.
What is the process for having a page edited (happy to have admins vet the changes) and locked when under attack in this manner?
Do you or Wikipedia support have an email address?
Hello. First, please read Wikipedia's principles on conflict of interest for information on required formal disclosures. You must disclose your relationship with SETS. You should also read our principle for resolving content disputes.
The information contained is supported by sources. Wikipedia articles contain all information found in reliable sources, regardless of whether it is positive or negative to the subject. Thank you for starting a discussion on the article talk page about the veracity of the content and reliability of the sources, let's continue there.
You can propose a page be protected at WP:RPP, but given the nature of this dispute it is extremely unlikely to be locked.
The errors of fact examples I noted (as just a sample) are not supported by sources. Many of the changes since August 2023 are at best hearsay, at worst fiction. Others are obviously written to cause reputational damage as I previously noted. I presume you have read the negative tone of the material. It appears the extensive changes made since August 2023 (check the extent of changes for yourself) have been written by people associated with a rival group with obvious visible hostility to this group.
Dare I also ask are you independent in this matter, or are you also needing to disclose a connection with SETS or another rival group? Where is the requirement for the anonymous hostile content adders to disclose their relationships? There is a logic flaw here.
The way a page can be corrupted like this basically says Wikipedia is going to be un unreliable source for information when AI is launched against it (pages will be filled with generated rubbish like this Sydney electric Train Society page is now full of). If your actions in this matter are representative of Wikipedia’s normal procedures, then it appears Wiki has no means to quickly remove false and defamatory content. My deletion of the post August changes was to quickly remove what appears to be false and defamatory content. You actions have blocked this remedy.
If you want to resolve this matter properly I would suggest you should be asking what sections are the problem and why, and resolving them, not just restoring the page to try to protect the integrity of a page filled with falsehoods and negative propaganda.
I will follow up the conflict dispute link. However there needs to be a clear path forward for Wikipedia to promptly clear pages of misinformation as on display here. Otherwise Wikipedia will become worthless, or will become the subject of legal action for defamation, as the publisher of such material.
Thank you for notifying said IP. It wasn't strictly necessary, though. It's their 3rd block, but they only got templated for the first block. The "anonblock" template at the top of the page is usually enough notification. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
This is the first time I done this. Thank you for informing me about me forgetting to explain it more in detail. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.240.36 (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your ham-fisted, impulsive reversions of my edits to semelparity and iteroparity. The article is not your property, and my edits are legitimate, and warranted.
My reversion was neither ham-fisted nor impulsive. You changed
A species is considered semelparous if it is characterized by a single reproductive episode before death, and iteroparous if it is characterized by multiple reproductive cycles over the course of its lifetime
to
A species is considered semelparous if its individuals characteristicly experience only a single reproductive episode before death, and iteroparous if members of the species typicly have multiple reproductive cycles over the course of theirs lifetimes.
which contains many spelling mistakes, is grammatically incorrect, and is unnecessarily long.
Please do not have blinking, moving, or otherwise obnoxious stuff on your userpage. I don't have a major problem with the stuff hidden in the collapsed section, but please think of the people who have disabilities and really struggle with that stuff—myself included. I'd ask you to consider its removal, or at the least, including it in the collapse box so it is not visible by default. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:00, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, BalaM314. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! — rsjaffe🗣️01:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BalaM314. After reviewing your request, I have enabledrollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:
Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits. For more information about when rollback is appropriate, see Wikipedia:Rollback § When to use rollback.
Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the permission will be revoked.
Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!
After a motion, arbitration enforcement page protections no longer need to be logged in the AELOG. A bot now automatically posts protections at WP:AELOG/P. To facilitate this bot, protection summaries must include a link to the relevant CT page (e.g. [[WP:CT/BLP]]), and you will receive talk page reminders if you forget to specify the contentious topic but otherwise indicate it is an AE action.
