User talk:Gullupat

Gullupat, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Hi Gullupat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Gullupat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! MBlaze Lightning (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IVC[edit]

The original source isn't pushing the date of the actual civilization back or claiming it's the oldest. Please reaed Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation#Indus Valley Civilisation is 2500 year older than previously thought. You need to base your edits on what the original source actually says, not reports about the source. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 06:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly so if a civilisation has been scientifically proven to be older than that as was originally thought why should'nt the wiki article reflect it somewhere?

Because the original study doesn't make that claim, it says that cultures that were in a pre-civilization phase are earlier than originally thought. Doug Weller talk 20:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Subcontinent[edit]

The article was a stub. It did not give enough historical and cultural background as to the naming of the Indian subcontinent. Just how old is the idea of India being a separate continent? This requires a reference to Vedas and Puranas (if available). The concept of Jumbo Dweep and Aryavarta are also related to the idea of the subcontinent being a separate geographical entity of its own. All this should reflect in the article. Please do not start an edit war. This is not about you or me. This is about the right information. I have a Master's degree in History and have backed all my claims with proper citations and links. If there is anything wrong, discuss it on the talk page. Do not vandalize stuff.

I have added the relevant historical, cultural and political details. Hope so you people concur.

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Gullupat, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Indus Valley Civilisation has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

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. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
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 can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

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, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 06:16, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India-Pakistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Any further disruption, including but not limited to copyright violations, POV pushing, dubious sourcing will result in you being banned from the topic area or blocked. —SpacemanSpiff 07:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Gullupat (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have only added information that is pertinent to the topic, have cited my resources and improved an article that was mostly a stub. It is the other editor who has started the edit war without giving valid reasons. I am open to a discussion as per wiki policy and I am certainly not in favor of vandalizing which the others are doing Gullupat (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not allowed to edit war, not even if you think you are right (everyone thinks they're right!) And accusing people who disagree with you of vandalism won't help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please read WP:BLANKING. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your recent talk page comments on Talk:Indian subcontinent were not added to the bottom of the page. New discussion page messages and topics should always be added to the bottom. Your message may have been moved. In the future you can use the "New section" link in the top right. For more details see the talk page guidelines. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HI Gullupat, I can see that you very enthusiastic about your ideas. But I suggest that you slow down, read through the Wikipedia policy pages (especially the Five Pillars articles) and understand how to work with Wikipedia. There is no hurry. Wikipedia has no deadline. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Nathu La and Cho La clashes, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Specifically WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 10:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]