User talk:Nikhilmn2002

Re: British Raj
Peroxwhy2gen Talk 14:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dont you think about those wars where India was British colony, in those articles in Belligerents order British India should be shown instead of only India? Wikipedia already refers Republic of India as India, so reader can be confused. More ever India was a crown colony, British India (part of British empire) it would be clear I think.Ovsek (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't confuse anyone to be honest but either way British India or India it will take the person to the British Raj page no matter what. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 07:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Insurgency
I agree with the removal of Insurgency. Operation blue star is still added, do you think that Siege of Lal Masjid should be added to the pakistan's war page? Have a good one. Capitals00 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No Siege of Lal Masjid is part of the War in North-West Pakistan which is already there. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

No Siege of Lal Masjid was an event in Islamabad. It was a part of the war on terror but not War in North-West Pakistan. Please use verified information, thanks. Kool777456 (talk)


 * "Please use verified information"?? yet you go abouts and keep removing anything that talks about India in a positive manner. Please stop your disruptive editing and edit warring you have been warned on your talk page. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A well-deserved barnstar

 * =D thank you so much Mikrobølgeovn. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

About Afghanistan
Dear Indian Brother

Look at the Talk page of Afghanistan everyone is complaining about Afghanistan's location so made them happy to place Central asia before South asia and that is it. I know that Indians like it that Afghanistan is since 2008 also a member South asia and before that it was just a country in Central asia. Afghanistan is culturally connected to Central asia and Western Asia as you look at the Languages spoken in Afghanistan, the food, their race, their clothing, their way of doing........ Pashto and Farsi(Dari) are the most spoken in Afghanistan and are both Iranian languages not Indo-aryan like panjabi, urdu, hindi etc. And the 2 second largest language group in Afghanistan is Turkic like Turkmen and Uzbek. If you look what Afghans eat you will see that is very different from their Neighbor Pakistan we don't eat spicy or dhaal etc... Afghanistan had to join SAARC for political reasons as Central asia doesn't has a Political organisation. Afghanistan is country which is been in war for 3 decades. President Karzai was searching for International help to establish a better Afghanistan with a good economy so that's why Afghanistan Joined SAARC And Afghanistan needs Indian help for against terrorist state Pakistan!!! which made the Taliban to destroy Afghanistan and his future and history they burned the afghan history in Kabul's Library. Please Indian brother Don't change this minor change. it isn't something very special just made Afghans happy with our lost history and some cultures. Afghanistan has always been central asia look at old wikipedia pages and other information sites on the internet they all call Afghanistan central asia and other wikipedia pages in other languages do also.

regards your Afghan brother


 * If you feel so strongly about this then I won't change anything, I highly respect Afghanistan and its culture. I know Afghanistan political had to join SAARC as well as part taking in the South Asian games and culturally it doesn't have anything to do with the North Indian culture but more and more you see Afghanistan becoming part of South Asia as you know the UN states it being part of South Asia but then again there are some(US) that see it as part of "Greater Middle East" anyways I won't change anything it can stay as per your view. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Afghanistan edit war. Thank you. only (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't wish to be part of this. Thank you Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brother about south asia
Dear Brother it is me again

I wanted to talk with you about South asia (region), as you know there have been lot of edit warring at that page because some do not agree that Afghanistan and Iran are part of South asia and some do because of many definitions of the south asian region. Well if some add's Afghanistan they should add Iran too right? If someone Adds Iran he should add Afghanistan too because both are mentioned in the South asian region which the UN made. and some say: Afghanistan is in SAARC cooperation so Afghanistan is also south asia. well Iran also applied for SAARC full member but couldn't be accepted because of it's international sanctions as you already know. ( btw Afghanistan is also part of CAREC a Central asian cooperation)

so how are we going to resolve this with these 'kids' who don't like changes? if we put Afghanistan we should add Iran too because we are referencing to the UN regions. ( btw Afghanistan and Iran are both 'iranian' countries who speak iranian languages like Persian, kurdi, Balochi and Pashto with same culture, food etc)

Shall we add Iran too and delete Iran from West asia? or shall we let iran stay there and add it also to south asia? or do you brother have a other solution which we could apply

I first wanted to talk with you before making decisions because you have more experience in the 'Indian subcontinent' stuff

regards your Afghan brother - User: Feysalafghan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it is best that we get a consensus from people that edit those pages regarding where Afghanistan and Iran should be on Wikipedia's description of South Asia, West Asia, and Central Asia. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right but 1 thing afghanistan is not a core country because not on every map of south asia they include afghanistan or iran. How can we do a consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

List of wars involving Pakistan
Hello There,

I wanted to enquire regarding your decision to undo my edit on the page mentioned in the Headline. Unfortunately you did not state any reason so I am asking here, why was my edit undone? Nattynab (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Nattynab
 * There are still fighting going on but nothing major, until there is a peace treaty or ceasefire the Baloch conflict isn't over. Also sorry I forgot to put a reason to why I undid your edits. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I would suggest that since the current form of the edit makes it look like that the conflict is ongoing since 1948, it should be modified to reflect appropriately the different stages of conflict i.e. 1948, 1958-59, 1963-69 and so on. What do you think? Nattynab (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)Nattynab
 * I like the idea or maybe move it to the "Conflicts involving Pakistan not considered as wars" just like the Kashmir conflict. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

see the consensus i made
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_86#South_Asia

i made a consensus but no one reacted so what now? i made the consensus and now nothing happend because nobody replied and now its closed I will give 2 options brother:

-We should add iran too because we are going to use the United nations definition and we should protect that by saying this to moderators -We should use the cultural and core countries definition and add afghanistan too extended South asia?

And again brother SAARC the south asian economic organisation membership of Afghanistan does not mean it is South asian because Afghanistan is also part of many central asian organizations.

regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feysalafghan (talk • contribs) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Qajar
why did you undo my edit on Qajar dynasty ?? Viva! Persia (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source stating those countries were part of that empire??Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't need any source, this is a clear part of history. If you can read in Persian, go and read the Persian article. Everyone knows that Afghanistan and Balochistan of Pakistan were always a part of Iran Until middle of Qajar dynasty. However, for sources , you can read these :
 * Battle of Krtsanisi that shows Georgia was a part of Iran.
 * Balochistan, Pakistan for Ownership of Iran, but the Persian article has explained better.
 * Anglo-Persian War & Treaty of Paris (1856) shows that western Afghanistan was a part of Iran since 1856.

And these are helpful Persian articles :


 * جدایی هرات از ایران


 * بلوچستان انگلیس


 * امتیازات و قراردادها در دوره قاجار

Viva! Persia (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For now I will let you keep that change until I find anymore information.Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox
Hi,

I think you're mis-understanding me. You have "British Empire" and "India" separate. India WAS part of the British Empire at that time. So it doesn't make sense, you could either have India underneath/tagged to British Empire/United Kingdom like I did, or not have it all, because it was in the British Empire at the time. The Madras (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying but putting India underneath the British Empire was done before and nobody liked it. Also Mongolia and the Philippines were not independent either. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 04:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing was, at least to my mind, neither the Philippines or Mongolia were formally annexed, where as India was tied wholly to the British Empire. There's a lot of other articles where it does have British India underneath the UK. The other option of course is to not have India at all, because really, it's already there as part of the British Empire. The Madras (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing India from the list is out of the question, India played a major role in providing the British Empire with the manpower it needed. I like the way it is on there right now in noway does it say India is an independent state so it shouldn't confuse anyone. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The role India played in WWII is not open to debate, that's not what I'm saying. I'm not demanding it, I'm suggesting it. Regardless of the way you like it, it's inferring that India was separate from the rest of the British Empire. Another course of action would be to change "British Empire" to "United Kingdom" since most of its colonies and dependencies at that time are listed already - India, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and so forth, and list the "minor" players on the British side (if there was such a thing) underneath the United Kingdom in bullet points, such as Southern Rhodesia and the like. Just a thought. The Madras (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with him, India was part of British empire, not a separate country. India should be shown as part of British Empire, India was not dominion like Canada and Australia.Ovsek (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay let India be underneath the British Empire but I like it being called India and nothing else. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The article of WW2 is semi-protected, Systemic Bias I have seen in many Indian freedom movement, India during World wars articles. Any way please write this article, I have little time to give Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/India_in_World_War_IOvsek (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed it, sorry about the delay. However I would actually like to see it more in line with the World War I article, if you'd agree to such a change. The Madras (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. you may do what you want.Ovsek (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to article talk page.

India is naturally at top of the non-independent countries, without concurrence. Cheers, walk victor falktalk 03:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah but below all the countries that played a very small role. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox
As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 03:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Amazed
I am amazed that this vandalism could stay for 8 hours. Maybe it would've remained there for 80 days if it wasn't for you. Thanks for reverting.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of wars involving India
If you are knowledgeable about these please verify that List of wars involving Pakistan is back to where it should be too. The IPs were pretty busy on both of them. Meters (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see you are already there. Meters (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up though. Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 06:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page List of wars involving India that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!