YOU CAN EDIT THIS PAGE! Just click any blue "Edit" link and start writing!


From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search

this section moved to here from Talk:Mandarmoni[edit]

We have visited Leisure N Luxury (locally known as Sana Beach Resorts or Sandipan Babu's lodge.

Though it is not fully functioning but we feel within a month or two i,e. JAN'07 this would be a pride of Bengal.

The Beach certainly the best in Bengal

Suggestion: to put signboard then it would be easier to locate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 2 Jan 07

Is this an article?[edit]

This article was initially described as a beautiful virgin beach resort. The word resort was removed in a previous edit by another user. Does this mean it is only a beach or is there a resort on the beach too? If it is only a beach, then maybe this is not an article, but only an attraction.

All indications are that it is just a beach some distance from Digha. I think it should just be redirected there and unlinked from Digha.
No - if it is some distance away the article guideline suggests it be a separate destination. I can point to other articles where this precedent has been set for a beach. I would rather wait and see what evolved. At least 2 people think it is a destination to go to because the edits on Digha for the link were some time ago in November 2005. -- Huttite 07:24, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)
This is actually a generic problem for India. I think I had better raise it in Wikitravel talk:What is an article? --Ravikiran 08:23, 4 Jan 2006 (EST)

Mandarmani is a separate destination. The beach here is virgin and there are only a few resorts to stay ( as of June 7 2006).

Candidate for protection[edit]

One of the few accepted grounds for protecting an article is to stop edit wars, which this article certainly seems to be experiencing. Folks, please try to reach consensus on article contents, consistent with the Wikitravel:Manual of style, including Wikitravel:Don't tout, and so on. This is a warning that protection is starting to be considered. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 22:22, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

hotel demolition[edit]

Anyone know anything more about this? Is it ALL hotels they are trying to demolish, or just a few? – cacahuate talk 01:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

This is hysterical! It sounds like squatters set up "hotels" on some beach and then went after Wikitravel? This whole spam saga is the weirdest I think I've seen. --Peter Talk 02:49, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Well no. Pretty much all construction in India is illegal, because there are so many regulations to keep up with that it is impossible to do anything lawful. So the only way to build anything is to go ahead and build it, and then pay bribes to regularise it. The spammers are not hotel owners. It is some booking agent who has been trying very hard to get his phone numbers on Wikitravel. Worse still, he is getting annoyed that Wikitravel has started listing actual phone numbers of hotels and has been removing the numbers, replacing those numbers with his numbers or when everything else fails, removing those listings entirely. — Ravikiran 03:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I suppose, then, the truly strange thing about this spammer is his persistence? --Peter Talk 13:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Indeed. — Ravikiran 08:55, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
It seems that today our dear friend has given us his company name? --Peter Talk 02:32, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
It looks like his latest stunt is to add legitimate hotels, but insert his own number in the phone number field. — Ravikiran 05:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I feel some system should be made to stop the illegal and wrongfull editing. sandy

Hi Sandy, we prefer to keep the Wiki as open as possible, the whole idea is that anyone can edit a page... unfortunately sometimes people abuse the site, but we've got enough regular users around who can pretty quickly revert any unwanted edits, so I don't think we're near a point of having to protect the page yet. The anonymous editors who are trying to add weird things here will probably get bored pretty soon anyway, they usually do! Thanks! – cacahuate talk 14:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Bad press[edit]

Interesting article on the current controversy in Mandarmani. Stay out of the sea, travelers! – cacahuate talk 15:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

My recent experience at Sana Beach resort Mandarmani[edit]

I Visited Mandarmoni with my friends on the 12th of April,2008. Sana Beach resort came highly recommended, how ever we had a frightful experience of getting beaten up by the Resort staff as they did like us complaining about their attitude and service.I feel sad that the owners/promoters of the Resort have built such a fine place but has kept hoodlums to run and manage.

Beaten up, huh? Given the relentless touting on this article, I'm wondering whether we shouldn't devote this article to simply dissuading anyone from ever going here. If Wikitravel experience is anything to go by, this whole beach seems a den of thieves! --Peter Talk 16:23, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Phone # spamming & article protection[edit]

Dear friends, Today (16/03/2011) I have edited few section and I have done it for the benefit of tourists only. I undertake that the edited portion is 100% correct as of now. Thanks. Sourav

I've protected this article again for another month... I hate protecting articles, but the reverts aren't happening fast enough, and the wrong phone#'s are spending as much time on the website as the right ones.

To the phone# changer... BAS! We won't accept travel agent phone #'s for hotels... they MUST be to the hotel direct, and they MUST match the phone # listed on the hotel's official website. Thanks – cacahuate talk 15:39, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, point taken. I will mention, though, the fact that the spammer loves this page makes it easier to catch when he hits other pages. But then again I think I've already watchlisted all his faves though... --Peter Talk 01:58, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I love this article. Wikitravel wouldn't be the same without the Mandarmani phone spammers. Gorilla Jones 23:10, 25 December 2008 (EST)
a new spam. In the hotel listing "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry was pointing back to Debraj Resort which was also in the listing and the phone number also pointing back to DebrajResort. I have deleted the "Mandarmoni Beach Resort" entry. Cacahuate and Peter please verify. 23.09, 13 March 2009 {EST}

Since this remains a daily nuisance, just a few tips for janitorial work:

  1. Revert all phone number changes unless it's absolutely clearly done by a reliable contributor;
  2. Make sure to hard revert bad changes by multiple contributors;
  3. Revert any and all additions whatsoever of the so called and oft-SCREAMED Shantiniketan Hotel of ill repute.

Thanks! --Peter Talk 19:08, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

Protection revisited[edit]

Is there any reason not to indefinitely protect this article against edits by anonymous users? Gorilla Jones 11:50, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
The volume of trash has become so enormous recently, that I've finally come around to the idea. I'd like to protect this article, as well as Shankarpur, Digha, and Gorumara National Park for two weeks and see what happens. I'm going ahead and doing that, but if anyone objects (to a length longer than the 24 hour admin discretionary period) at Wikitravel:Protected pages, I'll be happy to revert the protection. --Peter Talk 17:50, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
I'm fine with the protection, but per policy please list these pages at Wikitravel:Protected pages#Temporary semi-protection so that they have the proper visibility. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:55, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
O ye of little faith ;) --Peter Talk 18:02, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
I'm OK with the protection (and had I seen the above note earlier, I would have been bolder with reverting all those telephone number changes), but is there a way that a note directing good will anon users to discussion pages could be added to editing window? Two weeks is quite a long time and sending away anon users empty handed with their possibly useful additions isn't very much in line with the philosophy of a wiki. At least they could see what is going on and why the pages are protected in the first place by being escorted to the talk pages. – Vidimian 20:08, 25 September 2010 (EDT)
Done. And I agree—I don't like protections much at all. I'm hoping the two weeks is long enough to get the spammers to move on, so we can get back to business semi-as usual in Southwest Bengal. --Peter Talk 21:04, 25 September 2010 (EDT)

I left out another forgotten favorite, Bakkhali, and have now added that to the protect list. --Peter Talk 14:18, 30 September 2010 (EDT)

And Sundarbans National Park, which I also forgot. (These guys are remarkable.) --Peter Talk 22:02, 3 October 2010 (EDT)

The protections have expired, and the troublemakers have resumed high volume activity immediately. I have suggested we try blocks to see if that is at all effective. --Peter Talk 22:33, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Edits to Mandarmani, Shankarpur and Digha are ongoing, multiple times per night, most of which appear to be touts. I'd like to propose that we add a comment to the Sleep sections of these articles indicating that due to touting, any changes to Sleep listings must be justified on the article's talk page first, and that repeated additions without discussion will lead to the user/IP being blocked for periods starting with 24 hours and increasing thereafter. Thoughts? -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:58, 30 December 2010 (EST)
*bump*. -- Ryan • (talk) • 10:48, 31 December 2010 (EST)
That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd like the hidden comments be placed multiple times through the sections, though (especially at the long ones of Mandarmani, and Digha), so they won't go unnoticed by well-meaning users. – Vidimian 12:11, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Now that I am back and have time to pay attention to this, I'm going to try liberal blocks, as mentioned above, as well. --Peter Talk 13:57, 31 December 2010 (EST)
I've added a comment indicating that unjustified changes will be reverted and may lead to the account being blocked. -- Ryan • (talk) • 13:42, 1 January 2011 (EST)


I have added a warning box to all the above listed articles, urging travelers not to advance book, owing to the dangers of winding up with a bad phone number. I can't imagine any class of business owners that I would trust less (except perhaps drug dealers?). --Peter Talk 13:35, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Remove all hotel phone numbers[edit]

In light of the warning discussed above, maybe it would be best to simply remove phone numbers from the West Bengal articles under attack altogether? Even if just a few bad phone numbers get through, we would be doing travelers a disservice in having them here. --Peter Talk 11:57, 21 June 2011 (EDT)

Hi Peter, yes I agree. Indeed I did take some action in that regard on the 16-17 June having got rather tired of the antics of these clowns, see edits 17-17 June. I removed the numbers in many of the West Bengal article listings after cross referencing to my own list of known tout numbers and email addresses. I am certain I have missed some but having been incited sufficiently by the persistent nature of these activities I dug out quite a few of the mischievous West Bengal listings that ranged rather bizarrely to as far away as north western India. I agree entirely with Peter. If we see a listing that cannot be substantiated to a credible source, such as the providers own website, (and even that must be subjected to close and vigourous scrutiny) or to a clearly credible govt tourism source (and I suspect they get it wrong sometimes) then it should be deleted. Any number put forward by a contributor should be subjected to intense and thorough scrutiny. The no edit note=delete is a good idea but of course some legitimate edits may lack the familiarity with WT to do this or even know that the edit note facility even exists. I know that in the past I have inadvertently reverted a new Bengal tout hijack number to a previous version, only to later realise that was also a Bengal tout hijack number such is the spawning of these listing details. If you review the West Bengal articles now you may note that many are currently lacking either a tel number or an email address, or both. I think I may have even deleted 1 or 2 listings in entirety having concluded they were only 'baits' or 'false flag hotel' listings established just to carry a WB tout number. I have cross referenced some numbers to Possibly this is a credible source. There is also a Bakkhali Freserganj Hoteliers Association, again hard to be certain about them either but they have at least an air of credibility. A read of this pdf that discusses the local issues a few years ago may shed some light onto the general context of hotel and touristic operations in that area [ Government of West Bengal-Department of Environment-Violation of coastal regulation zone norms by the hotels in Mondarmoni and Sundarban areas], and they are the legit end of the business. -- felix 05:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)

These appear to match their URLs and the listings current on 22 June 2011 and at that time the listings below do not appear to have any tel number conflicts or to be listed with more than one provider:

  • Mandermoni 9830035839 / 9333099512/ 9831515514, KOLKATA BOOKING: 68/39, More Avenue, Kolkata- 40, 9331257305/ 9330077537/ 03324819359, Website: www.resortpriyajeet.c
  • worldonindia.comm
get any help free of regarding hotel booking and travel in mandarmani

  • Vill. & P.O.- Mandarmoni, Dist.: Purba Medinipur, W.B. Contact: 9932977184, 03220-20025
  • NB. limited website showing only a Kolkata number and address (slightly dubious but only in the general WB tout context)
  • Quick Contacts, (M): 9748899684, (M): 98318 75353, Reach Us; Kharagpur Office: Diamond Tower, Jhapetapur Kharagpur, Ph : 03222 257611, 96091 29721, www., City Office (Kolkata): P-103A, 2nd Floor, C. I. T. Road Kolkata-700014, Ph : 033-3242 6435, 033-22841066, 033-22841077, Contact us for Booking: Kolkata (M): 9748899684 / 98318 75353 Email: [email protected]
  • Mandarmoni , Purba Medinipur, Digha, Contact for Reservation & more Information : +91 9903593610 & +91 9331882883. Additional Contact No. Mobile : +91 9330859481 , +91 9333449848 & +91 9331882883, +91 9432251517.
  • Travel Icon 28, BIPIN BEHARI GANGULY STREET Beside Carey Baptist Church & Opp Hanemann Lab, kolkata, +91(033) 40078155/40078291 alt: Mb: 9831417919 [email protected]
  • Sonar Bangla phone="deleted +91 33 4006 0787,deleted +91 33 4006 5773, deleted+91 98360 56456" url="deleted-dead link with redirect
  • For phone booking, please call : 9831399988, 9831599988, 9831699888, 9163399988, 9007022890, 1800-102-9922 (Toll Free)
  • Sana Beach, Mandarmoni, Purba Midnapore, West Bengal Ph: +91 90077 25066,+91 98314 73785, E-mail: [email protected] Head Office:1A, Brindaban Paul Lane, Shyambazar, Kolkata, +91 33 2530 1030, +91 33 6452 5172

No URL in current listing: these listings appear to have a unique number and no apparent cross references to known WB scam numbers or contacts

  • Samudra Bilas" listings previously removed
  • Samudra Sakshi Resort" +91 91 4315-0273
  • Shorelene phone="+91 92 3957-2058
  • Hotel Shinjini 9B, Sidhu Kanahudahar, phone=+91 91 6314-2803

-- felix 05:26, 22 June 2011 (EDT)


Correction: The spelling of Mandarmani is not correct this will be MANDARMONI. Pl. correct —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

This appears to be at least somewhat correct—I get 45.5k en google results for Mandarmoni, 40.9k for Mandarmani. Move? --Peter Talk 13:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

This is also to inform that in the Central Govt. published map name of Mandarmoni is officially written as MANDARBANI

Follow our larger cousin? - and whoever wrote the bulk of that guide, obviously has some knowledge of the city. On the other hand, most of the websites linked from our guide, uses Mandarmoni... and then again, the links from the Wikipedia article uses Mandarmani - so this could still go either way, hmmm, tricky stuff --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:02, 19 March 2009 (EDT)
The official tourist agency West Bengal Tourism uses Mandarmani. So I think we should follow their lead. --Stefan (sertmann) Talk 14:12, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

I, sandipan Biswas - MD has made some changes to give the correct information of The Sana Beach

Editing on 16.03.2011[edit]

I have edited some areas of the artical with full responsibility considering the latest situation. Thanks. Sourav