User talk:SamanyaGyan

I'm open to suggestions if you have one. Thank you!

Welcome!

Hello, SamanyaGyan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content you are trying to add really belongs in 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided references for everything I wrote unlike you who wrote biased facts and took sides without providing references. Since few things in the article were written which belonged to Lok Sabha elections so I added few more to make those biased writings neutral and all by providing references. SamanyaGyan (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2021 West Bengal Legislative Assembly election. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me who is reverting someone's edits. It is you who is reverting my edits which has been written with proper references. And if you really want to reach a consensus then open a discussion on the article's talk page than reverting other's edits. SamanyaGyan (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All edits to Wikipedia are subject to WP:CONSENSUS. Repeatedly reinstating disputed content without obtaining CONSENSUS can be grounds for sanctions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you understand Kautilya3 what can happen if you repeatedly revert other person's edits which were written based on references from news articles belonging to reputable media agencies. SamanyaGyan (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]