User talk:Gopalchan45678

May 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hindu nationalism, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jafferlot, C. (2013). R.B. Lal Chand. In: Jafferlot C. Hindu Nationalism: A Reader. Ranikhet: Permanent Black. pp. 88-94. Gopalchan45678 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following citing is where the definition for Hindutva is used. Christopher Jafferlot has long been the favoured resource for academic publications on hindutva or hindu nationalism. Gopalchan45678 (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Hello, I'm DaxServer. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, ThePrint, 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. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:48, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Punjabi Suba movement

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Punjabi Suba movement, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

You unexplainedly removed content sourced from Princeton University. If you have any concerns, please discuss on the talk page of the article before doing so. Thank you Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the talk page, please note if you continue to remove well sourced information, you are privy to be reported for disruptive editing. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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 special powers 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 practice;
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.

Abecedare (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Punjabi Suba movement) for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing and edit-warring instead of participating in the relevant talkpage discussion. The current block is short and narrow in the hope that you will mend your current approach but if the disruption continues or expends to other pages, you may be blocked from editing this topic-area or wikipedia.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Abecedare (talk) 13:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case it is not clear, you are still able to edit Talk:Punjabi Suba movement and are encouraged to respond to the concerns raised about your sources and edits. Abecedare (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]