User talk:BalaM314

This is your only warning; if you continue to avoid templating me because I'm a regular, you may be hit with a fish without further notice.

vn-4

This user talk page has been vandalized 4 times.

Sus (Amogus)

This is BalaM314's talk page. If I messed up something please tell me here.

January 1970

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User_talk:BalaM314. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 1:23, 20 April, 271821 BCE (UTC)

Trouted (incorrectly, for reverting COI on KWIC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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 Bdweeja (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Delay section is very old & the informations are incorrect[reply]

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.

BalaM314 (π) (talk) 11:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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? Exclusive Editor _{Notify Me!} 14:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks BalaM314 〘talk〙『π』 14:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted (incorrectly, for reverting COI content removal on SETS)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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?

Regards

Hugh Burns

120.154.50.154 (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

BalaM314 〘talk〙『π』 08:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hugh Burns 120.154.50.154 (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information was removed by another user a few days after 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 13:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning User talk:212.38.185.141

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]

Wow that was fast!

Nice revert on FBG Duck I had barely finished reading it when you fixed it.. Stickymatch 02:40, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whenever a user vandalizes more than 5 times, I patrol their contributions page. 『π』BalaM314 〘talk〙 02:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trouted

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

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 AJzegerman (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC) dont ban me you jack wad[reply]

A cupcake for you!

Hey! I really liked how you’ve improved your stub article — your use of citations is awesome. Keep going! :) Raffkid (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knock it off

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.

12.75.128.8 (talk) 02:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.