NitinMlk, you are invited to the Co-op![edit]

Hi there! NitinMlk, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us! I JethroBT (I'm a Co-op mentor) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Badminton[edit]

Have you spoken to the editor in question about his edits? I can take a look, but I know very little about badminton. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't! So, now I will leave a message to him & will tell you regarding the consequences later.-NitinMlk (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do. You might also want to talk to the folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Badminton; they can give you better guidance than I. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I will talk to both of them.-NitinMlk (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

BWF Continental Championships[edit]

According to your edit in Juliane Schenk page, Euro Championships are categorized as GPG instead of Continental Championships. If I remembered correctly, it is considered a CC which gives points equivalent to GPG level (same as others, with exception of Asia Champs which has SS point equivalent). If we make Euro Champs as GPG, I think it is rather pointless we created the color-coding for CC. I think we should leave the European Championships as CC instead of GPG. Griff88 (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Griff88, if all of the Continental Individual/Team Championships are graded by the BWF then you are right that 'Continental Championships' category is useless. But, at first glace, it seemed to me that few CC events aren't graded. And for those non-ranking CC events I added the category. If you are assured that every CC event since the introduction of the new ranking system (in 2007) is being graded by the BWF then we should remove the category. But we have to be assured about it.-NitinMlk (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

BWF color code[edit]

Hi, NitinMlk. I changed BWF tournament color code in Grand Prix level from #00FFFF to #9ae8e8 for better visibility. I think the former really strikes in the eye if located between tournament with darker colors. Griff88 (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Need advice regarding a disruptive editor[edit]

If you feel it is right, then make a bold move, by revert.

Yes, i believe so, it is successor of Jarmur (account), if you feel it is the need of action, then go through to WP:SPI.

Sorry, a bit late reply. --Aleenf1 06:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Aleen, thanks for the guidance! If he will persist with disruptive editing then, after warning him one more time, I will try to gather evidence against him for the WP:SPI.-NitinMlk (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me![edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have created an article under the title Anita Sheoran with authentic citations. Later I found out a stub of the same wrestler with an incorrect title, namely Anita Tomar. As many a times Anita Sheoran's first name is mentioned in the news, the aforementioned stub can be retitled as Anita (wrestler) - to avoid confusion among readers. But I am unable to move the page from Anita Tomar to Anita (wrestler). So, I need help regarding this.-NitinMlk (talk) 08:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying that Anita Tomar and Anita Sheron are the one and exact person? If so, the Anita Tomar article should not be a separate article if she is actually Anita Sheron. Please clarify before I continue. SwisterTwister talk 08:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

SwisterTwister, yes, they are the same person! Anita Sheoran won a gold medal at the 2010 CWG on the same day as that of Alka Tomar. And news articles flashed their names together in the headlines. So, some confused editor thought that Anita is sister of Alka Tomar. And created the article with the incorrect title. And that article has stayed till date. So, to clarify her name, I have added dozens of citations in the Anita Sheoran's article. The citations include her official Profile (as published by the IOA) & an interview of her parents.-NitinMlk (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So just to be clear Anita Tomar does not exist and the article should be deleted now that you have corrected the linked articles-yes?Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes.-NitinMlk (talk) 12:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice article by the way. I put a speedy tag on the old one - which may work (or not).Peter Rehse (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me all the way! It was my first article & I completed it in haste. Hopefully my next article will be better than the 'Start-class'. :) - NitinMlk (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Hardeep Singh (wrestler) has been accepted[edit]

Hardeep Singh (wrestler), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 03:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

People from Punjab[edit]

The potential problem with removals such as this is that they may have been born at a time when Pakistan did not exist. In that case, they were indeed born in Punjab, India. I mean, strictly speaking, it would be Punjab, British India, but this just goes to demonstrate how messy the criteria for these lists can be.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone challenges that removal. - Sitush (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I understand your point but the title of the article clearly states Punjab, India. It doesn't say British India's Punjab. So, it should only include the people born & raised in the present-day India's Punjab.-NitinMlk (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I said that because Punjab, India is totally different from the erstwhile Punjab Province (British India). But if I got it wrong then please tell me. And I will delete my all the relevant edits on that page.-NitinMlk (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying you are wrong. I just think it may be challenged somewhere down the line. The same might apply to some names that I removed. At that point we would have to consider consensus, although it is blindingly obvious that a lot of the entries should not have been there because they existed entirely due to alleged ethnicity, not where people were actually from. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok, I won't make further edits on this page till we see their response. But if they want to include Pakistani Punjabis then they must alter the article's title.-NitinMlk (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why you should stop. - Sitush (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok, in the coming days, I will try to add birth-related citations on the listed people's main pages. Once that is done then there will be lesser chances of edit-warring. BTW, the one thing I don't like is edit-warring. But I think it's unavoidable.-NitinMlk (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to engage in warring. You make a bold edit, someone reverts you, then take it to the talk page and sort it out there. Yes, there are times when it seems unavoidable, particularly if dealing with vandals or incompetents, but you'll only ever get so far that way in any event because of WP:3RR. - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok. So, what do think regarding Pakistani Punjabis inclusion on that page. Should they be kept there? Or should only those be kept who were born in the area which is now under Indian Punjab.-NitinMlk (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I really don't know the answer to that because the entire purpose of the list is pretty vague. I think it probably needs to be raised on the talk page and perhaps also a link to that discussion could be posted at WT:INB so that uninvolved people can perhaps provide some thoughts. Any mention at WT:INB needs to be neutral, eg: "I've opened a discussion at [talk page] regarding the scope of the list and perhaps also its title. Thoughts would be appreciated because Punjab, India can mean different things to different people and the region has had various boundaries over the years." - Sitush (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Seems like I will learn something useful even earlier than I thought.-NitinMlk (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I am clueless regarding this all. So, who will actually open the talk?-NitinMlk (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You can do it - don't be afraid. Just ask the question: what is the scope of this list etc? If you have strong views about what you think it should be then mention those also. I could do it for you but you'll only learn well if you have a go. I'll watch your back, so don't worry about upsetting people. Just remain calm. - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Ok. I will post it within few hours because now I have some other stuff to complete. And thanks for the guidance!-NitinMlk (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I've posted a query on the article's talk page & mentioned regarding it at the WT:INB. One thing which is very clear is that articles like this one won't disappear because if this one gets deleted then the very next day someone will post its messier version. And you will have to start the cleanup from the scratch. So, it's better to define it's meaning & scope clearly. And sort it out for once and all. After that happens, this article won't bother much.-NitinMlk (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Re: Delhi[edit]

Re your message: I made a mistake when trying to remove the spam. I think what happened is that I used to the article history diff to locate the spam, but then I started the edit using that old revision diff instead of starting the edit from the current revision. I wasn't aware that I started on the wrong spot, removed the spam, and failed to do a diff before I saved it. My mistake. I reverted my changed and removed the spam the correct way. Sorry about that. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: Thanks. Now I will sort out the 'Demographics' section. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry that you have to redo your edits to the Demographics section. Hopefully it isn't too much work. I didn't want to make a further mess of things my trying to merge your changes back into my spam removal and screw things up for a second time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

@Gogo Dodo: It's no big deal. I will sort that out within few seconds. :) NitinMlk (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Great! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mausam Khatri has been accepted[edit]

Mausam Khatri, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, NitinMlk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

re:Welcome (Krishna Poonia)[edit]

Good evening, today I saw your message. Before canceling my edit on Krishna Poonia's birthday, I invite you to read the quoted sources. Both in the article and in the biography of the IAAF it is indicated that the year of its birth is 1982, as I rightly wrote. The year inserted in the page (1977) is wrong. Check it better before deleting the changes. --Mattew666 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Mattew666. I read the present revision's ref 1 (of CGF) which mentions the year of birth as 1977, but the ref 3 (of IAAF) mentions it as 1982. Actually, I was the one who added both of these references last year, as can be seen from my this & this edit. Ironically, last year I read the IAAF ref & changed the birth year from 1977 to 1982, as can be seen in this edit. But this year I read the CGF ref & changed it back to 1977, as can be seen in this edit. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhagana, Hisar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hisar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

- NitinMlk (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Moona Sehgal (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, NitinMlk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Want ans[edit]

What you want why u are doing edits on page if u want to do edit then inbox me u r views Saksham ahi (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Saksham ahi, please stop adding original research, and read all of your talk page notices carefully. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hounding[edit]

Since which time you have become interested in disrupting an article about an art gallery situated in the UK?[1] Or this is an emerging pattern of your WP:WIKIHOUNDING? Accesscrawl (talk) 04:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Your revert was vandalistic in nature, but I am assuming good faith. Please see User talk:Accesscrawl#Vandalistic edit. - NitinMlk (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:NOTVAND and follow WP:BRD, though I would rather recommend you to stop this hounding all together. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalistic reverts, and discuss at the article's talk page instead of commenting here. - NitinMlk (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Some notes[edit]

I understand what you were seeing at the SPI. That was a valid filing, and due to the evidence you brought, a checkuser was run.

In general, it is not a good idea to give notice to people of an SPI, as you did here. If they are found to be a sock, then they are found to be a sock. If they are not found to be socking, then they are not. All that the notice really does, is antagonize people and create drama. SPI is the one board, where we usually don't notify people.

Doing this was unwise, as has already been pointed out at ANI. Be very careful about calling things "vandalism" or even "vandalistic". This further antagonized things.

The edit war warning was fine in theory, but what has already started happening by now, is that your concern about Accesscrawk's promotional behavior, has gotten tangled up in a content dispute. This is very, very unwise. You should focus on dealing with the behavior or focus on dealing with the content. Trying to do both at the same almost always derails.

In the future if this sort of thing happens, please deal with one or the other. What I suggest you do now is disengage from dealing with Accesscrawl, and post at WP:COIN, making the same argument you made at SPI. Folks there are very used to dealing with promotional editing and sock/meat. I often post at both SPI and COIN, since the two boards deal with different things -- SPI for identifying socks, and COIN for dealing with the content and behavior issues other than socking. After you post there, people who patrol that board will also come look at the content, so that you don't have to (and don't feel that you to) deal with the content as well.

If you like please see User:Jytdog#How_I_try_to_help_manage_COI_in_WP and the rest of the stuff on my talk page about dealing with COI and paid editing.

Happy to discuss, after you have read that stuff. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, firstly, this was the second SPI filed by me. In my first SPI, the scenario was such that the alleged sock was asked to comment. So, in the second case I thought it would be good idea to notify the involved parties, but it just brought personal attacks on me & other participants. So I guess not notifying them would be a good idea in the future.

Secondly, the use of "vandalistic" term was one of the worst thing I did in the present case, but I will keep that in mind in the future.

Thirdly, now I've completely realised that I shouldn't have tried to manage both the promotional behavior & the content. But now I've no option other than to comment at the ANI if someone misrepresent my edits.

Finally, I will read about the COI in the coming days. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't quite agree with the advice regarding SPI from Jytdog. The SPI notice is there for a purpose, but you are asked to use your judgement as to whether notify people. The rule I follow is that if it seems likely to be settled by a CU check, there is no need to notify. If it looks like behavioural evidence needs to be considered, then it is better to notify them so that the editors can defend themselves. You would also need to consider your relationship with the editor. If there are already tensions, they are likely to be exacerbated with a notification or even from the fact that you filed an SPI. While writing the SPI case, it is useful to make it as impersonal as possible keeping mind that the result might come out as negative, and you would need to work with the editor again perhaps for a long time. It is all a balancing act and by no means easy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3 for your inputs. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

NitinMlk it is a misconception that it is useful to keep replying when people write bad stuff about you. You have to trust the community to see through that stuff; continually replying (especially at length) makes you start to look bad. If you observe enough of what goes on at ANI, you will see that first yourself. The most important thing is to pay mind to what people outside of the conflict (like Swarm) are saying, and respond to them. fwiw Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for the suggestion. I will keep these points in mind. But even without looking at COIN, I am sure that I won't file any complaint against anyone now, as it will surely get derailed right from the beginning. So I guess someone else will have to deal with it. Having said that, I will surely go through the links provided by you, and will use that knowledge in future in the appropriate cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 23:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I came by to leave a similar note. I don't have the time to analyse the SPI, but NitinMlk, you should be really careful about describing something as vandalism. Read up on WP:NOTVAND, if you would. Referring to something as vandalism when it isn't is sanctionable; even otherwise, it is something anyone you are in a dispute with will seize on and use to muddy the waters. Accesscrawl's edits were disruptive but not vandalism. Just keep that in mind. Vanamonde (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I will surely remember this during my future edits. In fact, I am someone who welcomes the new problematic editors with the relevant IP/user welcome templates, unlike many other users who create the IP/user talk pages with level 1 warnings. But I've just seen how things work at the ANI, and that too in my very first edits there. Anyway, thanks for the advice. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Edits on Khatri page[edit]

It seems like you are an administrator of the Khatri page. I want certain additions on the page, if you would please. I'm ready to provide all the details and evidences for the changes that I want. These changes include mention of various kingdoms that were ruled by Khatris. The claims that King Porus was a Khatri. The genealogy of Bedi and Sodhi clan in Bachchitar Natak, etc Sayanha7 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Sayanha7. Firstly, no one is an administrator of the Khatri or any other Wikipedia article, i.e. you are free to edit that page. But before you do that, you must provide sources which meet WP:HISTRS. So please read that page carefully. If someone still delete your reliably sourced addition(s), then you should discuss regarding the same at the Talk:Khatri. Secondly, the Khatri article is summary of the most important details regarding the Khatri community. We cannot add all the details there. So you should add the details of the Khatri kingdoms on their respective Wikipedia articles. In case those kingdoms don't have Wikipedia articles, you can add the relevant details in the articles of their rulers. Thirdly, there is a tendency among Indian writers to claim that certain famous historical figures belonged to their caste or community. So, we need a scholarly source written by a non-Khatri regarding the caste of Porus. In fact, I guess there is hardly any known details regarding his early or personal life, let alone his caste. Fourthly, information is added at the appropriate pages, e.g. genealogical details covered in Bachittar Natak should be mentioned in that article. In fact, they are already covered on that page – see Bachittar Natak#Genealogy. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, NitinMlk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your fine and detailed comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Munjal. Edwardx (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)