User talk:Jkumar2u

Welcome!

Hello, Jkumar2u, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type   on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your edits at Lodhi
Greetings, I see you're trying over and over to make some changes to the article. If you're not understanding why those changes are being undone, please click the "History" tab while on the Lodhi page, and it will show you all the changes and why they were made. Your edits are being removed because the Rajput status of the Lodhi is a contested issue (as the article notes), so adding a lot of Rajput-related links to the article would not be WP:Neutral, because it would appear to be supporting a claim, or arguing a case that the Lodhi are Rajput. The article should instead mention the different schools of thought without drawing any final conclusion. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Helloo matthew, who said to you that Rajput status of the Lodhi is a contested issue. If any book suggest that they are Kshatriya or Rajput, you call it as Claim. Lodhis have been a ruler caste. They have 23 Rajgharanas,few of them are : Ramgarh, Mandla MP; Gahora, Chitrakut MP; Kerbana, Bateagarh, Damoh,MP; Hindoriya (Hata, Damoh) MP; Madanpur Mahroni, (Lalitpur) UP, India. It has nothing to do with post-independence or 20th century, that they acquire power. Lodhi need not to claim to be Kshatriya or Rajput. They are Kshatriya. (talk)


 * Jkumar2u, if you look at the article, you will see that there are a number of sources that give them a different status, and that all sources calling them Rajputs are strictly the group's claim for themselves. Thus, those categories are inappropriate. If you wish to discuss the matter further, please go to Talk:Lodhi and start a new section there, with reliable sources that support your position--in this case, we need sources independent of the Lodhi themselves. But you need to stop reverting on the article; we call that edit warring, and it can result in your account being blocked. We have to collaborate and follow policies, and that means you need to discuss the matter and provide sources to support your points. Thank you. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Jkumar, again you continue to add uncited Rajput claims. Have you not actually read the article, which clearly explains, cited to academic history books, the various theories as to the origins of the Lodhi, and their changing social status over time? You are doing no good for the Lodhi community if you ignore their genuine history to promote some whitewashed version. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Final warning. If you edit war to add unsourced categories overemphasizing a theory not supported by most reliable sources again, you will be blocked. Discuss the matter instead of edit warring. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Kshatriya
I have reverted your contribution at Kshatriya. Some of the categories looked a bit suspect and if we are to include the Rajput template then we would need to include all the other various templates for groups that are reliably sourced as being kshatriya - this would likely overwhelm the article. Finally, and arguably most significant of all, you marked it as a "minor edit" and it most certainly was not. You should never do this because, for example, some people have their watchlists set to ignore minor edits. Please could you read WP:MINOR and if you feel that your contribution was correct then perhaps open a discussion at Talk:Kshatriya. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Grayfell. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dental implant have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 06:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * sir,
 * above given information is true and real by the indian history please correct.. 2409:40D2:56:40F2:6459:1931:D8CF:FD50 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)