User talk:Kvjr0604

Raj era sources

Please note that Raj/British India era sources, such as you used at Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas, are not considered as WP:reliable sources. Please do not use them on Wikipedia - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Gazzetter a reliable source? Kvjr0604 (talk) 07:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Kvjr0604! Your additions to Chavda dynasty have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Your edit to Origin of the Gurjara-Pratiharas has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand it is from google library and there was no need to remove it. 163.53.179.249 (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The item was published in 1957 and therefore still enjoys copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just first thing that's been used of 1957, there are many more sources been used in wiki with 1957 or even earlier year records and no copyright has been made. Anyways just say so you don't want people to know the The Gurjara pratihara clan was of Gurjar caste/origin. 163.53.179.249 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That seems unlikely, since I have lived in Canada all my life and have never heard of this clan or caste before. — Diannaa (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yeah because you are living under a rock, check this out https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurjar , just say you don't wanna let people know how PhD has been done on Gurjar pratihara and they are concluded as Gurjar origin. Kvjr0604 (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 103.191.123.152 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer at least the valid questions 103.191.123.152 (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer at least the valid questions 103.191.123.152 (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was a valid answer Kvjr0604 (talk) 08:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions

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 South Asian social groups. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Gahadavala dynasty. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The very source itself says later the dynasty adopted rajput title. So i think you ar just targeting, here read = The eastern Ganges plain did not experience the disruption of Punjab, despite Mahmud's attack on Kannauj. Kannauj was soon restored and became once more the prize and on account of this suffered continual attack from various states the Chalukyas, and later the Gahadavalas who claimed Rajput status. Now who is distorting history huh? Its from the very source that's mentioned there= ^{Romila Thapar (28 June 1990). A History of India. Penguin UK. ISBN 978-0-14-194976-5. The eastern Ganges plain did not} Kvjr0604 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting Thapar here. She isn't asserting that the Gahadavalas later claimed Rajput status or at worst it's not even using that they later adoped Rajput title.

It's simply stating that after Mahmud's sacking of Kannauj, it's soon regained it's prominence and suffered attack from the Caulukyas and later by the Gahadavalas, later is used not for Rajput status or anything like that but just for the fact that after the Caulkyas, Gahadavalas later took over it. Don't think there is a rocket science in understating the author, unless it's a deliberate misrepresentation. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 16:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dork read this properly don't make your own new sentences out of blue,

"The eastern Ganges plain did not experience the disruption of Punjab, despite Mahmud's attack on Kannauj. Kannauj was soon restored and became once more the prize and on account of this suffered continual attack from various states the Chalukyas, and later the Gahadavalas who claimed Rajput status."

Here it clear has a full stop at kannauj for mahmud's attack so sentence ends there, after that its says it was restored and various status including Chalukyas there is a comma=it separate sentences now, then it clearly writes "later=afterwards" the gahadavalas who claimed rajput status, here it clearly says its a status, so dork do whatever you want to do i already know you guys are distorting history very bravely so be it that way, someday i am sure you guys will get its punishment. So enjoy till then Kvjr0604 (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Panwar, you may be blocked from editing. Re Pa©ker&Tra©ker (♀) 00:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]