User talk:Kbir1

Welcome!

Hello, Hnsampat, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:23, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello, there!

This is Alexa. Found your page here. I'm also on Wikipedia. Feiriri 03:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mughal-e-azam

I wrote much of the Mughal-e-azam article. I'm not sure why you put a POV tag on it. So far as I know, there's unanimous consensus that it's a noteworthy movie. Could you elaborate? Zora 03:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks for clarification. I'll see what I can do to fix the POV -- but later, I have to go buy catfood! Zora 20:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

India related links

Enjoy your stay on Wikipedia!! --Gurubrahma 17:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Good work NPOV'ing Bhagat Singh! Arvindn 06:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! And thanks for your help! --Hnsampat 14:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey... i am not sure if you are the author of Wiki ob Bhagat Singh .. but I would suggest not to use abusive words such as militant... for bhagat singh.. every body knows he was a revolutionary ... if more please see a superhit movie Rang De Basanti.... movies are not made as such ... and nobody would buy your argument that he was using militatnt methods.. you can say .. voilent methods..

please correct the wordings ... wiki is a source of info so be very careful in using your words..

thanks

dude.. thanks for your eye opening message.. however.. it is a derogatory word in the modern society ... definition are always arguable...and often smart people dont go after volatile definitions...whatever the definitions are .. I would still request you to change the word to revolutionary.. Just think.. nobody reads definitions ... they read what you write and take impression with them.. "militant" is definitely a wrong word for drscription of Bhagat Singh.. If you are pro-gandhi.. then you have a prejudice against BHagat Singh .. which should not be reflected on your comments on Wiki.. such things are personal.... Atleast, in all my 30 years, I have never seen anybody saying "militant" to Bhagat Singh..

The Bhagat Singh article's quite good but do you know any books that detail his biography which we can use as references. A bit more referencing and expanding during this week and then I'm going to put it up as WP:GAC. I'm looking for pictures as well and I've asked at the Indian Noticeboard about them. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Feeling Welcome

Thanks for your welcome : )

As I look at your page here, I notice that someone else welcomed you as well. Nice to see the cycle continues : )

Jc37 04:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem User

Hi Hnsampat.

I'm having serious problems with a user who has been vandalizing the following articles:

Ram Janmabhoomi Bal Thackeray Manu Smriti

Plus, he has been making personal attacks against me in his edit summaries (as you can see): here

I have reported him.

here (last entry)

I also suspect that he is a sockpuppet of user Anwar saadat (who has been given a week long block). I was hoping you'd monitor these articles. Regardless of your personal feelings towards me, towards controvertial figures like Thackeray or controvertial issues like RJB or Manu Smriti you have to admit that his edits are extremely POV and unsupported... Thanks (Netaji 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC))

Manu Smriti

As of now, all three articles Manu Smriti,Bal Thackeray & RamJanmabhoomi are protected from unknown vandal (probably Anwar saawat of the 'Religion of Peace'). Good. Now we can begin civilized discussion. Please see talk page of manusmriti article.

Discussion on Shiv Sena & Balasaheb

Plz contribute to this discussion: here. Netaji 02:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

After looking up how they work, and who can give them (honestly because of someone else who also richly deserves on), I thought about everyone I've encountered on wikipedia, and decided that you definitely deserve one. You've been a tireless watchdog over TWW articles, and, I believe, a fair one. And that includes me : ) While we may disagree at times, it's always been discussable, and you've always had a positive attitude. So, here:

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		The Working Man's Barnstar may be awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. And I award this one to you for being a tireless watchdog over TWW articles, and for attempting to smile and be fair in all actions. - jc37 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It's well deserved : ) - Jc37 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hnsampat

"Hnsampat is one of the smartest Wikipedians." --GoOdCoNtEnT 21:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Done

Hi, well done on writing a revised plot for the film Duel - thought what you wrote was excellent and well written. LordHarris 12:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The West Wing LPT

		The Original Barnstar
		Hnsampat is hereby awarded with an Original Barnstar by me, Scm83x, for his excellent understanding of literary present tense and explanation of such to others. May his words be carried forth to other literature, television, and film articles in hopes of appeasing grammar-obsessed English teachers everywhere. Thank you for your well-crafted words! — Scm83x hook 'em 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

I noticed you don't have a user page. Some users redirect their user page to their talk page (User:Mailer diablo), others don't even want that and would prefer that they are deleted (User:Monicasdude at one point). Let me know if the latter is something you'd want, as I can do that. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

TWW infoboxes

I noticed the message you dropped on my page about the spoilers in infoboxes. I realize my error, but how will I know what to keep in and what not? What about minor spoilers, like Abbey's sons-in-law? Also, some other series' infoboxes (take Veronica Mars, for example) have TONS of spoilers in them. I'm confused... WestWingFan 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Character "based on"

We seem to get a fair amount of uncited "<Some character> was based on <some real world politician>". Besides putting a helpful comment in every TWW character article, can you think of a way to educate the masses about this sort of WP:OR? : ) - jc37 20:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that, as we continue to revert such original research, the issue will gain visibility on its own, much in the same way that this whole is/was issue came to light. --Hnsampat 22:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On a side note, an anonymous user recently added information about each character's age to their respective infoboxes. Some of this is supported by information from the series, but most of it is original research. (For example, Donna's age is noted as "20s" even though there's little to no evidence in the series to indicate that this is her age. In fact, I would put Donna in her early 30's, but that's just me. Regardless, it's original research.) Could you please give me a hand in removing that information? --Hnsampat 22:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, done. The only one I left was "1961" for Matt Santos (Sounded more reasonable than the other "ranges"). I also removed gender (unambiguous on TWW), and fixed a redirect link, at the same time : ) - Hope that helps : ) - jc37 03:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Jed Bartlet disability

Not that it matters to me too much, but I was wondering about your reversion of my added category to the Josiah Bartlet article. "Lame" doesn't imply that a person is crippled by an injury, only that they walk with great difficulty. As such, I don't really see any difficulty with him being in that category (the whole point may be moot anyway, BTW - I see that the category is up at WP:CFD). Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think that Jed Bartlet can count as "lame" even by that definition. For most of the series, he walks around just fine. It's really the last season-and-a-half where he walks with a cane (and during that time, we barely see him anyway). Even with the cane, I wouldn't count that as "walking with great difficulty". It's not, for example, the same as Dr. Kerry Weaver on ER, who has to use a crutch because of a medical condition. --Hnsampat 01:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. As I said, it probably doesn't make much difference anyway given the possible deletion of the category. Grutness...wha? 05:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox version

This is a userbox version of the barnstar that I previously gave you. Use if you wish : )

The Working Man's Barnstar - Awarded to those who work tirelessly and endlessly on the more laborious or repetitive of Wikipedia tasks. And I award this one to you for being a tireless watchdog over TWW articles, and for attempting to smile and be fair in all actions. - jc37 08:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

TWW broadcast history

I understand why you reverted my edits to the broadcast history section, since separating the seasons seems tedious, but grouping them together is also misleading because all the other seasons ended in May, whereas only the season 6 finale aired in April. Stating that the series aired in a given timeslot from September 1999 - April 2005 is incorrect if the finale dates are noted. I'm not going to revert back to my edit since it's not a substantial difference, but I just wanted to provide a rationale for separating season 6 from the others. Cue the Strings 22:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you didn't see it, I replied to your question on my user talk page. I see you've already edited the article, which is fine (and thanks!), but just in case you needed more info, there it is. Sorry for not notifying you earlier! Cue the Strings 19:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Simi Garewal and Siddhartha

I'm not sure what your point is...but the comments about Simi's Garewal's nude scene in Siddhartha making big waves have been around for more than thirty years, and the comments in the article to that effect (I've now added an Indian source even) are multiple around the Web, and long before it. I've researched this movie at length for more than 15 years, and have original articles from its initial release. There's no POV in the Garewal comments, and I have no idea why you keep screwing with them. Please respond here, if you choose to - I have added a source/quote and reverted. Thank you. Tvccs 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing inherently POV about saying that Simi Garewal had a nude scene in Siddharta and to say that that caused a controversy in India. However, I changed the sentence as it was written because of its tone. Saying that Garewal did a nude scene "in a country where before that, even kissing was banned from the screen" feels like too broad a generalization. It's not like that it's an untrue statement. It's just way too broad a generalization.

Earlier, I had removed that sentence because I felt that it detracted too much from this page. It felt like it was an unrelated side note. Since then, I've changed my mind and I agree that it is relevant to mention this on the Siddhartha (film) page. However, I think that sentence ought to be reworded, which is what I did. --Hnsampat 00:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - I have no problem with the reworded language. Tvccs 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Who shot Burns?

Why did my edits to who shot Mr. Burns, that a DNA fingerprint identifies and individual not a family, count as original research? That's not exactly a revolutionary new theory you know! Did you even look at the DNA fingerprint article directly linked to the edit? Are episode goofs not allowed to be put in the trivia section? Simpsons contributor 11:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of how DNA fingerprinting works. However, for you to point out that the filmmakers "goofed" in some way is original research. If you were to cite one of the filmmakers saying something about the goof, that's a different thing. However, in this case, you found the goof yourself and you reported on it. In other words, this is your own original research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Goofs are not permitted in the Trivia section or anywhere else. They belong on IMDb (which publishes such original research), not Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 16:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There are many article on South Park, Simpsons and Family Guy episodes in which “goofs” are mentioned. Here are a few: 1 2 3 4. I’m sure that if I looked longer I could find more.

I thought original research was things like Intelligent Geography, something I just made up, which postulates a flat earth based on scientific evidence; or my theory that my cat Towser is the reincarnation of Elvis Presley. Why does pointing out goofs count as original research? Simpsons contributor 16:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to look further. I can tell you for sure that there are tons of articles out there that have "goofs" listed in them. However, that doesn't change the fact that goofs are still original research.

Original research does not necessarily have to be completely made up nor does it have to be way off base. You're confusing original resarch with "quackery" and pseudoscience. Take a look at WP:OR and you'll see that original research can be somebody coming up with some incredibly new idea or somebody taking an existing idea and modifying it. For example, if an article about a film includes an "analysis" section where the author points out the various themes, motifs, symbols, etc. in that film without citing any outside sources, that would be original research. That is because the author of that section is introducing his own ideas. He examined the film and found something new that he is now sharing with everyone else. That is original research.

Likewise, you watched "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" and you, completely on your own, found an error. You then published what you found on Wikipedia. So, you conducted your own research and then you published it. So, that goof was original research.

Original research isn't a bad thing in and of itself. Every research article ever published anywhere is original research, since it is the author publishing the results of his/her own research. However, original research is forbidden on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, the inclusion of goofs in articles is unencyclopedic. An article on "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" in Encyclopedia Britannica (presuming that they were to ever write such an article) would not include goofs. Goofs don't belong in Wikipedia. --Hnsampat 16:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Goofs don't belong in Wikipedia? What about the articles I’ve directed you to? I like reading about cultural references and trivia in Simpsons articles. If somebody added “the episode Sideshow Bob Roberts is named for the film Bob Roberts” would that count as original research? If somebody noticed the reference and wrote it down it must be. Should it be removed for that reason?

I’ll leave my edit out – it’s not that important – but I still can’t figure out why me writing an observation down is unencyclopedic. What I put is entirely true, and the link included shows that. Simpsons contributor 17:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, just because other articles do it doesn't make it right. These articles also have lots of unsourced speculation (e.g. so-and-so may have been based on so-and-so), which is clearly original research.

Original research doesn't have to be false. It just has to be unverified. According to WP:Verifiability, information may only be included in an article that has been "published by reliable sources." Otherwise, it is considered "unverified." The "Sideshow Bob Roberts" example would be considered original research unless you found a source (e.g. a Simpsons producer) who explicitly said that that's what the reference was. (For example, in the episode where Homer becomes a union leader, Mr. Burns is shown making expressions like The Grinch. In the DVD commentary, Matt Groening explicitly says that the scene is a reference to The Grinch.)

I like reading Simpsons trivia as much as the next guy. But, we have to abide by Wikipedia's policies. If you'd like, I'd direct you to the SimpsonsWiki, which has different rules than Wikipedia. Also, like I said, trivia/goofs are encouraged on IMDb. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Goofs are not notable enough to merit being in a Wikipedia article. --Hnsampat 18:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Shortening "The Big Goodbye"

Hello, originally I wrote this article, and I apologize for it's length. I've cut it back as much as I think is reasonable, getting rid of minor details and unnecessary dialog. I left in some of the more funny bits especially concerning Data. Please take a look at it and tell me what you think. It's still kinda long but from what I understand of what makes a good article, detailed length is a plus. Some of my other trek articles are pretty long, ans as soon as I have time, I plan to cut them down to a more reasonable length. I just ask people be patient and not annihilate articles unnecessarily. Cyberia23 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like your plot summary. There's just one big problem, however. If you take a look at the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it says that articles about fictional works should not primarily be plot summaries. Also, in Wikipedia:Writing about fiction, it says that all articles about fictional works should be written from an "out-of-universe" perspective, as opposed to an "in-universe" perspective, which is what most of the TNG articles are like (i.e. they start out with information about the stardate, etc.). I think what Wikipedia is actually looking for is a much shorter plot summary, something like a quick two-paragraph synopsis.

Still, I hate to see all your hard work go to waste. You might want to consider posting your extended plot summary to the Star Trek Wiki (which I believe has different rules than Wikipedia) and then significantly cutting down the current plot summary. Thanks for all your hard work! --Hnsampat 02:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I'll see what I can do. In the meantime if you want to participate in cleaning up Trek articles, join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Trek. We need more active participants. Cyberia23 23:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Memory Alpha - the Star Trek Wiki - sucks in my opinion. There is a lot more information here and I figured it is a better place to contribute. Cyberia23 23:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou

Thankyou for the barnstar, you're contributions on the article have also been extremely commendable. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hey, for a long time now ive noticed all the great edits youve made to Duel in my watchlist, especially since my original comment in September and feel that you deserve a film barnstar.

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Well done for your work on the Duel (film) article LordHarris 22:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

External link

It does not violate. Link makes you reach to his speech im mp3 online. Lots of people are visiting , listening, enjoying and complimenting. Purpose is solved thus. Page needs more links like this. It's otherwise a one link sleepy page. You can contact me direcly on japanpathak@yahoo.com Goodluck, Jay Gujarat.

Casino Royale FAC

To let you know that Casino Royale (2006 film) has undergone improvement in the last week and I have now nominated it for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I would very much appreciate you taking the time to review the article and state your opinion. Thankyou. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 09:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Edits in Jatindra Nath Das

Hi! I reverted your edits in the article. The statement you removed sounds PoV, true. However, it is cited from respectable source (a lecture in a conference titled How Empire Mattered: Imperial Structures and Globalization in the Era of British Imperialism held at Berkeley, CA, April 4-5, 2003. That's why I reverted. Please feel free to modify/comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. However, even if reputable sources are cited, an article cannot push a POV. Now, if that is actually the opinion of the person who gave that lecture, then please quote it and indicate that this is his opinion. Otherwise, the statement cannot stay. (Basically, just because somebody said it doesn't make it fact. If we treat opinions as fact, then we are violating NPOV.) --Hnsampat 14:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Bal Thackeray

I hear you. I think that he would call HIMSELF an extremist, however. No? --AStanhope 02:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability

I just wanted to tell you to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Anna Nicole Smith Smith and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faye Turney before you start making Personal attacks on what kind of User I am, because both those articles were deleted because of me for my reasons you keep saying are flawed.Just because people didn't agree with other articles, doesn't mean you can question my behaviour Rodrigue 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was in no way a personal attack and I'm not questioning your behavior. Rathar, I am disagreeing with your arguments. I noticed that the kind of arguments you were putting forth were all things that have been covered in Wikipedia's official policy on notability and so I suggested that you go ahead and take a look at that again, especially since two of your recent nominations based on the rationale of notability either were or are overwhelmingly shaping up to be strong keeps. It was just a friendly gesture, nothing more. Please do not take this personally and please assume good faith on my part. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat 20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about me takin offence.Its that you said it on the deletion page and not a talk page, it puts doupt on the integrety of my nomination when you say things like that.I was simply responding to what you said, because it wasn't fair to say things about me for everyone else to think.I am well aware of Wikipedia policies, I just have that particular opinion.

And you didn't even notice that I was right on the 2 other articles I nominated for deletion, especially the Death of Anna Nicole Smith article because that was deleted because her death had no sighnifigance, like I was pointing out,unlike the death of Adolf Hitler for example who is a historically important person. Rodrigue 20:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. Perhaps it would have been better if I had made the suggestion on your talk page and not on the discussion page. I apologize for that. (By the way, I did notice that the consensus favored your rationale on the other two articles and I did comment on it in the current deletion discussion.) --Hnsampat 21:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well just so you know I didn't comment because I just wanted you to apolygies, but I will admit that people don't seem to support my opinion on this particular article.Personally I think notability beyond that of just pure celebrity status is important for otherwise trivial articles, but I realize current policy wouldn't technically contradict the article, I just thought User opinion would disagree. Rodrigue 21:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that people are saying that the incident is notable just because Mel Gibson is notable. Notability is not transferable. Nor are people saying that the incident is notable because of the huge impact it had on Mel Gibson's life (i.e. he was almost universally condemned as an anti-Semite). What makes the incident notable is that it was quoted over and over again in the media when other celebrity controversies occurred. As one user pointed out, the incident became something of an archetype for celebrity tirades in the U.S., which is what makes it notable. --Hnsampat 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if I understood what you meant, notability is tranferable, because when hitler died it was more notable than all the over people who died that year,especially during ww2.

And since the article may not be deleted, I thought since it is notable, the Michael Richards event is a as well.Unlike the other incident, the Michael richards event was referenced in popular culture (on an episode of south park), and it had a direct long term effect (the laugh factory then on banned the use of the n word), so even I think those two things make it notable enough, and I think I will infact start the article soon. Rodrigue 21:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedies

Thank you. I try to keep on top of the backlog as much as possible. For some odd reason the Icon bar on this page is invisible to me. I am Anthony.bradbury

Crocodile Dundee trivia

What was the concern with the trivia section on the Crocodile Dundee section? It was referenced to IMDB and relevant. Mattabat 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that that trivia section was copied word-for-word from IMDb. We can't do that, even if it is sourced, because it constitutes a copyright violation. (Everything posted on IMDb is copyrighted.) --Hnsampat 12:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

watergate burglaries

I appreciated your comments on the talk page about the Watergate burglaries. I hope you have the time and stamina to lend to cleaning up some of these watergate-related articles. You obviously contribute to a lot of articles-- I imagine your Wikipedia plate may be getting quite full. Whatever you can contribute would help a great deal. All the best, Ukulele 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the advice, I'll try my best to find a good cite. By the way, I made a userbox for the film. You could put it on your userpage if you'd like, it's {{User-DuelFilm}}. Have a nice day! Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 02:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

thackeray

Thank you for starting a discussion. I have given my view.Bakaman 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: West Wing summaries

This has been brought to my attention previously. I split the individual articles from the master list (i.e., List of The West Wing episodes), however, I did not write the summaries myself. You'll have to check the page history to see who did. Some of the summaries are copyright violations, others aren't, which makes this mess even more confusing.... Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

ER

The reference to the real medical case you deleted was in fact a true medical case. http://aids.about.com/od/technicalquestions/f/ddsrisk.htm

Were there any other cases referenced throughout the series? Nazarian1 02:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism on Bhagat singh page

Dear Hnsampat - You are quite a stubborn person. You have been reported to admins [1] for your persistent vandalism of Bhagat Singh page despite ample evidence to the contrary and your failure to verify or cite any reference to repudiate the said assertion. There are hundreds if not more references to full name of Bhagat Singh - [2] Thank you. PatialaPeg 03:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between vandalism and a content dispute. What you and I have is a content dispute. I have also not violated the three-revert rule. I, instead, reverted your edits and then moved the discussion to the talk page. I have been acting in good faith. Please assume good faith on my part. Also, Google hits are not reliable sources of information that Singh's real name is "Bhagat Singh Sandhu". Remember, just because somebody said it doesn't mean that it's true. It has to be somebody reliable. Furthermore, a simple search for "Bhagat Singh Sandhu" would also bring hits for everybody who is named "Bhagat Singh Sandhu," not just the famous martyr Bhagat Singh (just like a Google search of "Michael Jackson" brings hits about the pop star and also everybody who happenes to be named "Michael Jackson"). If there is "ample" evidence to support your edits, then please provide it. If you'll note what I've written on Talk:Bhagat Singh, all I've done is ask for you to provide sources for your edits. You added the controversial material and so Wikipedia policy dictates that the burden of proof is on you, not me. Calling my reversion of your edits "failure to provide sources" is asking me to prove that his name isn't really "Bhagat Singh Sandhu," which is asking me to prove a negative, a logical impossiblity. Please assume good faith and try to work towards consensus rather than resorting to hostility as a first resort. Thanks!--Hnsampat 12:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That was his name dude. This is an encyclopedia; not your personal opinionated blog. You and your writing style belong on BlogSpot not here. Thank you. PatialaPeg 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel you are being unnecessarily hostile here, by accusing me of treating Wikipedia as if it is my own personal blog. I have been civil with you and have tried to be as cooperative and consensus-driven as possible. You, however, have for some reason decided to be hostile from the very beginning. I don't mind disagreement, since resolution of differences is the very force that helps Wikipedia improve. However, by being unnecessarily hostile and accusatory (i.e. by saying that I am treating Wikipedia like my blog, by calling me "stubborn", by referring to my edits as "vandalism," etc.), it is becoming difficult to try to work with you. Please remain civil and you may see that we are all on the same side (i.e. the side of making the Bhagat Singh article the best it can be). --Hnsampat 01:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

"Thirteen"

Do you refute any of these facts:

1. The betting slip is in the episode (I have time index 5:20 to 5:21).
2. The betting slip lists 6 doctors.
3. The episode has 6 fellowship candidates.
4. Five names are on the betting slip: Brennan, Cole, Kutner, Taub, & Volakis.
5. One candidate is not overtly named by her name thus far in any episode: "Thirteen".

That's all fact. It's in the episode and no conclusions are made by any of it. It's CANONONICAL by virtue of being in the episode. PERIOD!

Conclusions:

1. The five named candidates match exactly to five of the six names on the betting slip.
2. The "unused" name on the betting slip belongs to the unnamed candidate.

Six dots are there and they're numbered. The first five are connected and it's not original research to connect what the writers have put before you. Cburnett 04:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. It's called "synthesis from original sources." Besides, ponder this: if the betting slip has Thirteen's real name on it, then that means that Thirteen's real name is known to everybody in the House universe; so how come her name is still a mystery to them (i.e. they keep calling her "Thirteen" because they don't know her real name)? Also, how do we know that Thirteen placed a bet? It could be that someone from outside House's circle altogether made a bet, right? Sure, we can argue that it is most likely that Thirteen made a bet, but we're not in a position that make that kind of judgment, as that would count as original research. Hence, until it's explicitly stated in the show what Thirteen's real name is, or if it's stated by a writer or producer that the betting slip is indeed meant to be a hint, then we have no evidence that the name on the betting slip means anything. Thank you for understanding. --Hnsampat 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Now who's synthesizing? HONESTLY! You are synthesizing details about who knows whose name; reading into it; and trying to come up with some explanation for character behavior you see on the screen. And I honestly have no freakin clue what you're talking about Thirteen making a bet. Did you watch the episode? At all? Thirteen didn't have to make a bet to be on the ballot BECAUSE THEY WERE BETTING ON WHO WOULD GET FIRED! and Thirteen is one of those potentials. You are demonstrating that you don't even know the episode you are attempting to discuss.

Deducing that the 6th name belongs to the 6th candidate is not synthesizing. Trying to explain and rationalize character behavior: now that's synthesizing. If you truly don't see the difference between matching 6th name with 6th person and trying to explain character behavior then you have absolutely no business reverting others' edits. Seriously. Cburnett 06:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, chill out. You and I are disagreeing on a trivial matter, not the meaning of life. Your hostility, name-calling, and e-shouting (i.e. writing in ALL CAPS) are entirely inappropriate. Now, to quote Foreman from House, "I'm going to do something unusual...and admit I made a mistake." For your information, I did watch the episode in question, but I remembered it differently. I had remembered the episode as Chase writing down the names of people placing bets, which was the basis for the argument that I laid out above. I was mistaken, however, and there was an actual "ballot" that he was passing around. Still, there's no need for you to treat me like I've committed a sin for not remembering the episode correctly, especially since we're talking about a scene that was less than 30 seconds long and a ballot that was on the screen for 1 second.

I went back and took another look at the episode in question and, having done so, I still argue that Thirteen's "name" should not be included in the article. Here's a simple reason why: the ballot is not readable. The only way somebody came up with Thirteen's name is by doing a frame-by-frame advancement of the scene and then attempting to discern the letters. From my experience on Wikipedia, the precedent stands that that counts as original research, since somebody else could come in and discern the letters differently. The name on the ballot is far from unambiguous, and Wikipedia precedent and policy is that the material included ought to be easily verifiable. Looking at the image here, the last name does look like "Hadley" to me, but the first name could be "Remy," "Ramy," or "Romy" (all of which are real names). So, I contend that Thirteen's name is still unknown, despite what the blogs may have to say. --Hnsampat 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

e-shouting. Sheesh. Your entire argument is entirely faulty and you don't realize it. You absolutely completely misunderstand what original research is, then you put forth your own original research as an excuse to label something OR. Then you demonstrate that you have no comprehension about the subject matter you're arguing against. Not to mention the logic needed to connect 6th name to 6th person is extremely basic. In short: you want to play the game but you don't know the rules or understand the game and you claim you won (who reverted last?). You disrespect me (your "opponent") for it and I don't particularly care for it.

As for the subject matter at hand. I stepped it through frame-by-frame. Frame 7705 shows "Hadley, Remy" *perfectly*. There's absolutely, 100% no confusion on what name is shown. It's is unambiguous to the 10,000th degree. Since it is readable then your argument is entirely moot. Especially since it's a "trivial" matter. Cburnett (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, no need to be so hostile. I don't mind you disagreeing with me but I do take objection with your tone. I have never claimed that I "won" nor have I ever disrespected you. I have always assumed good faith on your part, no matter what our differences may be. (If you feel otherwise, I'm sorry you feel that way.) You, on the other hand, continue to be unnecessarily hostile and continue to assume bad faith on my part. Please stop; we're both working for the same purpose: making sure the article is the best it can be. Let's be friends, okay?

Now, let's forget any previous arguments each of us may have put forth and address the matter at hand. You may think that it's "unambiguous" that the screenshot says "Remy Hadley," but I disagree. Since a disagreement exists between us, the best way to compromise would be to find a reliable secondary source (e.g. a producer or writer of the show, but not a blog) that states that Thirteen's real name is Remy Hadley and that the ballot is meant to be a deliberate revelation of the character's name. However, I don't think you will find such a source. As such, until Thirteen's name is revealed in an episode of House, we can't presume to know what it is.

Wikipedia policy dictates that the burden of proof on controversial material is on the user who added the material. In other words, you have to prove that Thirteen's name is Remy Hadley. I'm not satisfied with the evidence you've provided and so I am technically free to remove the material. That being said, I don't want this to become an edit war between us and I don't want us to have to keep arguing. Perhaps we should bring this matter up on the talk page of the article, to see what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is. The question at hand: is 1 frame of a 1-hour TV show considered a reliable source for establishing the name of an unnamed character, especially since that name has not been mentioned in any reliable secondary sources? --Hnsampat (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, let's not bring the matter up on the talk page. I tell you what, let's do this. If you want to go ahead and add that tidbit back in, feel free to do so. I won't stand in your way. I continue to disagree with you and I am not conceding any of my arguments (except for the ones I conceded earlier), but I think this matter is a waste of our time. If Thirteen's real name really is Remy Hadley, then the show will eventually reveal it unambiguously, right? And, if it isn't, then the show will reveal what her name really is and this whole discussion will be moot. (Just so you know, I don't disagree with the idea that it is possible that Thirteen's name is really Remy Hadley. I just feel that that matter has not been sufficiently proven. If it turns out her really is Remy Hadley, I'm not going to feel like I was "wrong.") So, let's just wait for the show to say what her real name is. Sound like an equitable agreement? --Hnsampat (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Either way it is not up for you to decide. The ballot is in the episode. The ballot says her name is Remy Hadley. If they reveal later her name is Remy Hadley then things are fine. If they reveal her name to be not Remy Hadley then the writers contradict themselves (hardly the first time in film/TV history). So regardless of what happens with future episodes the ballot still says the same thing and doesn't make this "factoid" any less factious.

This has been my problem with you this entire time. You refuse to accept the ballot for what it says. It doesn't matter what you think about its correctness in the context of the House universe. That is your opinion and you refuse to accept it as such. TV and film consistently contradict themselves and it is not your job to put their ducks in a row, interpret what they really mean, and organize wikipedia accordingly (i.e., exclude the ballot because it doesn't make sense or "primary" enough). Cburnett (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd put it that way earlier, so that I could see exactly where you were coming from. The fact is, I agree with you. Helping the writers "put their ducks in a row, interpret what they really mean, and organize Wikipedia accordingly" is pretty much the textbook definition of original research through synthesis of sources. I supposed I had felt that, by citing the ballot as the one and only source for Thirteen's names, fans of the show were "grasping at straws" and were basically trying to do the same thing (i.e. take tidbits of information and try to synthesize conclusions from them). I don't think I was out of place in making a qualitative judgment about the reliability of the ballot, as it is our job to make sure that the sources we cite are reliable. However, your points are valid as well. We had a disagreement in judgment here, but I think we both knew what we were talking about, even though we disagreed. In any case, I think we're both on the same page now and the way the article currently stands is fine by me. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh GA sweep (on hold)

I have reassessed this article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. We are currently revisiting all listed Good articles in an effort to ensure that they continue to meet the Good article criteria.

In reviewing the article, I came across some issues that may need to be addressed; I have left a detailed summary on the article's talk page. As a result I have put Bhagat Singh's GA status on hold. This will remain in place for a week or so before a final decision is taken as to the article's status.

I've left this notice here because, from the article history, you have been a significant contributor. If you no longer edit this article, please accept my apologies and feel free to disregard this message ;)

Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

HEY!

WHy did you edit the Seneca Valley NJROTC part it has nothin to do with you so oyu should mind your own business and leave it the way I had edited. No one complained except you for some reason. Everyone in our unit enjoyed the page. You are a Jerk! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexdynasty (talk • contribs)

The article is about the high school, not the NJROTC. The information you included had what I felt were too many unnecessary details about the NJROTC (e.g. the ranking system, etc.), information that related more to NJROTCs in general than the one specifically at Seneca Valley High School. As you'll notice, I kept in information that is related specifically to the SVHS NJROTC. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and, as such, be prepared for any material you submit to be "mercilessly edited by other users." (I quote that directly from Wikipedia's policy saying that nobody "owns" any articles, which you can read at WP:OWN.) Thank you very much. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Equatorial Kundu

An editor has nominated Equatorial Kundu, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equatorial Kundu and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I voted to merge the article in question into The West Wing#Foreign without prejudice for re-creation if sufficient sources are found to establish out-of-universe notability. --Hnsampat (talk) 01:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Why aren't you an admin yet? - jc37 06:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Never tried, I guess. :) You think I should go for it? --Hnsampat (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, though I'll say up front that I haven't yet noted any of your edits besides TWW ones. - jc37 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind looking over my edit history and perhaps guiding me a bit through this process? I'd really appreciate it. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but please be patient. It will likely take me a fair amount of time (and to be honest, I seem to have a propensity for being distracted...) Though if it gets to be more than a couple days, please feel free to "poke" me with a note : )

Meanwhile, check out WP:RFA, and give a thought to what your answers to the default questions might be. Common concerns are things such as:

• What does the user intend to help with using the tools
• How has the user acted/interacted thus far
• Does the user have a fluent understanding of policy/process (Blocking policy, deletion policy, and protection policy in particular since those directly affect some admin tools.)

Also check out:

• Wikipedia:Administrators
• Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

And I won't be bothered in the least if you'd like to ask others for their insight about this as well.

I hope this helps : ) - jc37 11:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The name "Shock Trauma"

I noticed that you wanted to have the name "Shock Trauma" redirect to the center in Baltimore after I changed it to redirect to Trauma center. I want to clarify whether, from an international viewpoint, if the term "shock trauma" refers strictly to the center in Baltimore, or to the general idea of a trauma center. Maybe you know better than I do. A Google search of the term "shock trauma" does bring up the Baltimore center as the first hit, but then lists trauma centers elsewhere on other following sites.

I live in Baltimore, so I hear the name Shock Trauma associated with the one here all the time. But a name like that does not seem to be limited to a single location around the globe. I have created articles on many area hospitals, and whenever the same does sound ambiguous, a make sure to disinguish it from hospitals elsewhere that may have the same or a similar name.

Should there be other centers elsewhere called "Shock Trauma," it would be better to have this term redirect either to Trauma center or a disambiguation page listing all the centers using this name or this term as a part of their name.Sebwite (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I had that same thought even as I was redirecting back to R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. The only trauma center that I've ever heard referred to strictly as "Shock Trauma" is that one, which is probably because it was the first shock trauma center in the world. To be safe, we could make Shock Trauma into a disambiguation page that directs to both trauma center and R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. Eventually, if we can't find any other locations that are referred to strictly as "Shock Trauma," we can always redirect back. --Hnsampat (talk) 03:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good ideaSebwite (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have found that there are only two Wikipedia articles with the name "Shock Trauma" contained within the title: the ones in Baltimore and Calgary. But there are many other trauma centers that have "shock trauma" contained within their name. While the Wikipedia articles about them do not use "shock trauma" in their title, a visit to the web sites of these places will show their name containing "shock trauma" within it. Often, the Wikipedia articles are about the hospitals that contain the trauma centers rather than the trauma centers themselves. I am still in the process of trying to identify these - some of the articles are stubs. I do remember hearing the term "shock trauma" used quite universally when I watched Rescue 911 in the past. Sebwite (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Crime film edits

I re added prison films and crime comedies, since prison films by thier very definition feature prisoners, who are in prison because they have committed a crime. Films about criminals means crime film in my book. Not to mention they often feature murder and rape. Also crime comedies, how is this any less legit than say crime thrillers. There are after all action comedies (eg. the Lethal Weapon series), horror comedies (Black Sheep) and even war comedies (Good Morning Vietnam) so why not crime comedies? Thoughts? Nicknackrussian (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Merely being about criminals does not immediately make something a crime film. A crime film, by definition, has to be about crime itself. The criminal act itself or the criminal life or the criminal justice process needs to play a somewhat dominant role in the film. "Prison films" can conceivably be "crime films," but not all prison films are crime films. Films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile take place in prisons, but are not crime films just because they involve prisoners. To call them "crime films" would be like saying that Independence Day is a "political film" because its main character is the President of the United States (i.e. a politician). You are right that there are such films as "crime comedies," the most prominent example being so-called "Mafia comedies." However, films like Home Alone are not crime comedies simply because they involve criminals. So, I guess there isn't a problem with the subgenres themselves but rather with the examples used. Escape from Alcatraz is a crime film, but The Shawshank Redemption is not. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you mean. I was going to change the examples accordingly but it looks like you've already done this. But yeah you are right, thanks for the clearup! Nicknackrussian (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: House MD Episode 78 - You Don't Want to Know

Hi Hnsampat. I would just like to say that I really appreciate how seriously you take Wikipedia; this is definitely a serious endeavour, which when managed properly can improve the world immeasurably. Recently, you removed one of my entries, stating that it was original research. I didn't understand why you would have thought this, as the information that I printed was all factual, and has been substantiated by innumerable articles and textbooks (what I printed is actually the central theory behind an entire medical subspecialty). So I came to your page. Upon reading your quarrel with Simpsons contributor, I now understand your position. You then kindly directed that gentleman to the Wikipedia Verifiability content guideline, which states that ""Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source."

My question is, what if I link to the original script of House episode 78? Then, upon linking to that script (a verifiable source) I were to print the inaccurate statements made by Dr. House contained within that script? Would you deem that to be adequately referenced to not constitute original research?

The statements made by Dr. House were so fundamentally medically incorrect that anyone with even a basic scientific background could immediately spot the error. Therefore, I am not pointing out a "goof", I am pointing out an egregious medical error that, if repeated in reality, would lead to the death of countless people. Therefore, I believe that pointing out this egregious medical error is practically a requirement. It requires no original thought whatsoever to see that an error was made, and it is in no way original research. Therefore, to reiterate my question, can I link to the script, and then provide a second link to the scientific facts that have been violated in the script without violating Wikipedia's original research criteria? Thank you so much for your consideration on this matter. I know that you already have an established position on somewhat similar cases, but I would appreciate it greatly if you would reevaluate this novel situation.--216.197.168.141 (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! Thanks for your contributions! Actually, linking to the script and then linking to the medical facts separately would still constitute original research, although of a different kind. That would be "original research through synthesis of original sources." In other words, it would require readers to first read the relevant section in the script and then the relevant medical information and then you'd present your conclusion from that (i.e. that the show is wrong). Basically, when writing that, you'd have to lay out an argument for why the show was wrong, which is what Wikipedia's policies on original research and verifiability seek to avoid; no original research means that any conclusions presented on Wikipedia should be those made by outside reliable sources and not by the author. (I know, it's complicated.)

The perfect source here, though, would be if you were to find an article or something where a doctor or a medical association of some kind criticizes the episode for making a medical mistake like that. Given that the show is so popular, there's bound to be some doctor somewhere who has officially commented on the show's accuracy. There, what you'd be doing is publishing the conclusion of a medical expert, which would NOT be original research because you're not drawing the conclusion yourself but rather are presenting the conclusion of a reliable source. Look around and I think you might find something. Thanks for your work! --Hnsampat (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation Blue Star

If you know about Indian journalism, then you can't miss 'Vir Sanghvi' or "Hindustan Times". Maybe you don't know him, or missed him sitting in a plush corner of some western country.

Anyways while you are not ready to accept his "credibility" then perhaps you might have a look at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. In the "legacy" section, there are some potentially "straight" statements by " Vir Sanghvi" on the same lines. Don't be a hypocrate, please remove them too. They are also "way too pov".

Thanks for your concern and edit help. While you are at it , why don't you make grammer corrections, if there are any, to the article. Thanks once again.Ajjay (talk) 16:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You're awfully presumptive, aren't you, saying that I'm "sitting in the plush corner of some western country"? Anyway, the fact remains that the "Criticism" section of that article remains pretty inflammatory. Remember, there's a difference between something being true and being neutral. This section needs some serious POV work. I say this as somebody who has no stake whatsoever in this. You clearly seem to have strong opinions on the matter, but it would help the article if you heeded what I said, as I say this as a complete outsider. That's all I have to say. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How can you hold one statement to be true and another to be untrue, when both are from same person. Do you have a reliable source to prove that, the person, " Vir Sanghvi", is vaccilating in his mind, and all his staments should not be treated as on same level of integrityAjjay (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not calling him a liar or claiming that he's "vaccillating." I'm just saying that the WAY in which he says things is not neutral. It's perfectly reasonable for him to be critical of Bhindranwale and of the Indian Army at once. Not everybody takes sides on issues. We all tend to inject our own opinions into what we say, even if we don't mean to. What we need to be careful of when we write the article is that we don't inject our own POV into the article. Sanghvi claims that the Operation was considered the most mis-managed operation the Indian Army has ever done. But, does that mean that everybody or even a majority feel that that was the case? Remember, because this is an encyclopedia, we need to make sure that we report allegations, but don't presume that all allegations are true. I think the way that I've woreded it right now is relatively NPOV. Maybe you could find some reliable sources to back up those claims and we're all set! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

citing source would set it! finding a source is no problem for me. but i think you are right when you say "Remember, because this is an encyclopedia, we need to make sure that we report allegations, but don't presume that all allegations are true". the article is Npov, only needs more tweak up. i won't add any inflammatory statement, if i did earlier, that was un-intentional. Now i am gonna apply the same spirit of NPOV to bhindranwale article and i expect you to back me up . thanks.Ajjay (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See, in the Bhindranwale article, at least as far as Vir Sanghvi is concerned, POV is not an issue. There, they simply report Sanghvi's criticism of Bhindranwale, without deciding if that criticism is true or not. The problem in Operation Blue Star was that the criticism was presumed to be true. From my quick glance, I did not see any issue in quoting Sanghvi in the Bhindranwale article. However, if they had simply said, "Bhindranwale was a fanatic and a murderer" WITHOUT attributing that statement to Sanghvi, then that DEFINITELY would have been a POV issue. See what I mean? --Hnsampat (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

They are "quoting" vir sanghvi, from a third source. I gave a direct link to statements of " Vir sanghvi". Now don't tell me that a third party is in a better position to make claims about "vir", than "Vir" himself. I could quote him too, and place a link directly to his article.HUH? Ajjay (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that they had quoted a third-party in the Bhindranwale article. The issue, though, is not with Sanghvi himself. Here's the thing with him. We can't take what he says as facts, since he is a commentator and therefore his job is to offer opinions. However, we CAN quote his opinions as legitimate criticisms, PROVIDED that we attribute those opinions to him and don't assert whether or not those opinions are true. That's all I'm talking about when it comes to "tone" issues and "weasel words." And, really, we don't need to keep going back and forth on this. I've changed the wording in the Operation Blue Star article to what I think is NPOV. All we need are some sources now and we're all set. Thanks! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Then i will start as " according to vir sanghvi.............Ajjay (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to attribute the statement regarding Operation Blue Star to Vir Sanghvi, then that's fine. That's what I originally did on Bhindranwale. However, Hnsampat was correct to remove the non-attributed statement, since it was the opinion of a single individual. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not love)} 23:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Street Thunder

I have reverted your de-facto deletion of the Street Thunder article. If you had bothered to read the Assault on Precinct 13 talk page, where the matter of article merging was discussed, you would have noticed that there was a majority agreement that Street Thunder should remain a separate article. Frankly, you had no business taking such a drastic measure, since you never took part in the discussion. Moreover, you completely disregarded and disrespected the wishes of those of us who have been actively editing these articles and taking part in the discussion. If you do this again, I will consider it vandalism and report you to an admin. Sullenspice (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No need to get nasty. What I did was not vandalism in any sense of the word. In fact, what I did was perfectly within the policy of being bold. You clearly had a problem with what I did and so you reverted it. Fine. Threatening me the way you did right off the bat is incredibly uncivil of you. By the way, I stand by my opinion. The fictional gang isn't notable enough to have its own article. There hasn't been enough reported in reliable secondary sources. But, if the consensus wants to go the other way, I don't particularly care. Please don't reply to this message; I have no intention of getting into a discussion or an argument about this with you. But, if you ever want to leave a message on my talk page, then please be polite and cordial, not rude and threatening the way you were. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I see 2 people on Talk:Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film) supporting a separate article and 2 against it, so I don't know what "majority" you're talking about. Now, I didn't know that there was a discussion in place, otherwise I would have contributed there before taking action. However, please keep in mind that nobody owns the Street Thunder page or the AOP13 page and, as such, you're occasionally going to find people (like me) acting in good faith but doing things you don't agree with. The solution to that is to tell them that you don't agree, not to leave nasty threats on their talk pages. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how the people who revert valid edits (often without explanation) are the most sensitive when it comes to sometimes frustrated/angry replies of those people who have had their work deleted. No, I have absolutely nothing to do with this particular issue, but regardless. The work destroyers don't seem to realize that their ACTIONS are often much more rude then an appropriately frustrated posting (response) on a talk page. I only want the watchdogs to be more careful and be sure than any work they are unilaterally "undoing" is in fact vandalism or otherwise worthy of deletion or modification. I am going through such an issue right now - so that would explain my unsolicited comments. Just realize that the folks responding to the reverted edit already feel that someone has been rude and "uncivil" to them. That's my main point. No need to reply. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I understand and sympathize with the sentiment that you raise. I believe your comments here are partly in response to the fact that I reverted your edits to Primary Colors (film), where you added a chart showing who the "real-life counterparts" are to various characters in the film. If you look through the edit history of that article, you'll find it has been removed several times (only once by me) and each time for the same reason: that chart is unsourced and is original research. Now, before removing that chart, I raised the matter on the talk page. After waiting a long time and getting no reply, I decided to remove the chart. (I sensed the consensus was in favor of this action based on past editing history of that article.) When I removed the chart, I made sure to note in my edit summary why I did so. (I always do that, especially if I feel my edit might be controversial.) Now, I'm sorry if you feel what I did was "rude" in reverting your re-addition of that chart. However, it is original research and therefore does not have a place in Wikipedia. I know that it can be frustrating when you work hard and then somebody you don't know seemingly randomly comes by and removes it all. I also agree with you that editors should not be reckless in what they remove and they should at least be sensitive to the hard work that other editors put in. However, remember that when you contribute to Wikipedia, your work may be mercilessly edited by other editors (who, unlike me, won't even bother to give an explanation). (For more on this, check out WP:OWN.) Again, thanks for your comments! --Hnsampat (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Your edit of Primary Colors did bring me to your talk page, but I was not upset by your edit - as you explained the material is unsourced, in your edit. I only wanted to see the chart again as I had just seen the movie and went to the site and wondered where the chart had gone. I understand - though it would be handy to have it there - the reason for its removal. If I had a problem with this, I would have said so. My main point was only that those who "mercilessly edit" can't be sensitive when those who feel wronged are not happy about it. I've been told to be civil when I have been nothing but, by those who refuse to give explanations for their actions - very frustrating. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

impotant discussion on image of mahabharat 2008 tv series

hey mr. hnsampat this is user hardik telling you the truth of mahabharat image that i already called on image descrition that this image is from original 1988 tv series image but this image needed to upload beacouse one user rdmt319 moved your article to wrong title so to define series title. there is requirement to upload old series title defined photo till this series does not have any photo to prove that title is right placed already if do not belive me then visit mahabharat article history history have first entry that calls rdmt319 moved your article to mahabharata (2008 TV series) but to let this problem never done in future. this upload for image is required but when original 2008 series have any photo let you upload new version of this image file by replace this image till do not remove image again from page Mahabharat (2008 TV series). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkansagra (talk • contribs) 09:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Image Replay

Ya Mr. Sampat You Right What You are saying but if we have to prove that original title is mahabharat not mahabharata so the place for image is required till new series doesnot have any image to prove truth so i upload the image with caption that the image is of 1988 series is this or on image page decription called that this is original series image there no connection for cast with 2008 series but this is only to prove truth for title Hkansagra (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC) user:Hkansagra

But, all that image does is prove that the 1988 series is spelled "Mahabharat." It doesn't say anything about the 2008 series. Just because the 1988 series was spelled without the "a" at the end doesn't mean the 2008 series will be spelled that way. The image doesn't prove anything about the 2008 series. If we want to prove that the 2008 series is spelled without the "a", we need to find another source. --Hnsampat (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mahabharat (2008 TV series)

Please note the thread at User_talk:Hkansagra#Mahabharata_.282008_TV_series.29. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Klaatu barada nikto

The version you are reverting had a notablity tag erroneously added en masse to many articles to a misinformed editor, most of which have been reverted by other editors including myself. How are you questioning the notability of this famous phrase when it has been established throughout the article with references to its usage? Would you like additional references describing its popularity? Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tag for the second time, and I have begun expanding the lead section. I just added: The Robot Hall of Fame describes the phrase as "one of the most famous commands in science fiction". Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And now I've added philosophy professor Dr. Sanders. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My issue was whether the phrase was notable enough to have its own article. Merely being mentioned lots of times in the media doesn't make a phrase notable enough for its own article. I still wonder whether or not it should have its own article, but seeing that you're making an effort to improve the article and show that the phrase is notable and encyclopedic, I'm going to give it the benefit of the doubt and not pursue the matter for now. However, I'm hoping that this article will become soemthing more than just a list of all the times the phrase has ever been uttered because, as the article stands right now, it's worthy of being nominated for deletion. Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and nominate it for deletion then. It survived the last one. Let's see if it survives another. Why does it have to be something more than a list? There are thousands of lists on Wikipedia. You haven't made an argument for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I don't like the article or that I want to see it deleted. (FYI, the result of the AfD was "no consensus," not "keep," which does make a difference.) What I am saying is that the article has no real content other than a long list of everytime the phrase has ever been uttered. So, right now, it can be argued that the article is nothing more than an indiscriminate list. However, I think you're on the right track and the article can be improved. So, I'm encouraging you to keep doing what you're doing. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 01:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What I am doing is cleaning up after other editors when I should really be working on the articles that interest me. You would, in effect, be doing me a favor by nominating it for deletion, but you would be doing a disservice to those who think lists like this are informative. In case you haven't figured it out, I don't care what you do, as I don't participate in AfD deletion discussions. Do what you do best, and delete away, and I'll keep cleaning up after everybody else. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'll go ahead and restore the "unencyclopedic" and "notability" tags (since I dispute whether the phrase is encyclopedic or notable enough to have its own article) and we'll let other editors who have a stronger interest in the article address those concerns. If the article doesn't improve after some time, it may get nominated for deletion. We'll take things slowly. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for either tag. I can only conclude that you don't understand how those tags are used. For example, on what basis would you even consider adding a notability tag to a phrase that is described as the most famous one in science fication, and is discussed in hundreds of articles, books, and other sources? Is it possible that you are misunderstanding how the notability tag is used? I think so. Be a man and nominate it for deletion. Come on. Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging without discussion on talk is not acceptable. I've reverted your continued edit warring. Use Talk:Klaatu_barada_nikto#Notability_concerns to make your case and come to an agreement. Insisting on adding a tag to the article over the objections of others while not spending any time to improve the article is called drive-by tagging. Don't do it. Viriditas (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the misinformed editor. Here are some of my {{notability}} tagged articles. These got checked for notability because they already had other tags on the article. Some have since been reverted, some not.

• Religious Reform in Antebellum America
• Gurdeep
• International Christian University - Kyiv
• RHAM High School
• Cadillac V8 engine
• Word (comics)
• Klaatu barada nikto
• Volkswagen advertising history This one is most likely my error. SunCreator (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramayan TV Series

I'm doing something here: I discovered that the summary that was on the Ramayana page did not describe Valmiki's Ramayana, it described (almost exactly) Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan TV serial. So I took the summary off the Ramayana page and put it on the page for the TV serial. If you agree with this reasoning, please put the summary back. David G Brault (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to this article. However, I'm afraid I disagree with you. The plot summary that you put there is relevant to the TV series and the epic by Valmiki, but is closer to Valmiki. The TV series also borrows heavily from Tulsidas, including such elements as Sita having an actual swayamvara and not Rama simply asking to try to lift the bow. Also, in Tulsidas and in Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan, Sita's banishment is not shown (although it is shown in Sagar's next series, Luv Kush). The plot summary that you included only has details from Valmiki, not Tulsidas, and so it has a place in the Ramayana article, but not the Ramayan (TV series) article. More than that, though, I don't think we need a long plot summary in the Ramayan (TV series) article. It detracts too much from the rest of the article and is redundant with the information about the epic in the Ramayana article. What we really need in that article is more about the production and the impact of this series, since it was thanks to Ramanand Sagar's Ramayan that religious TV series became popular in India. Thanks for understanding! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I haven't watched the whole TV series. I have watched the first 4 or so episodes, and it seemed like the creator of the summary had created it with the TV series in mind. I have read Valmiki, and the summary is extremely far removed from Valmiki. Anyways, when I get done watching the TV series I might put up a proper summary for the series, like this article Lost (TV series)#Season synopses or this article Monk (TV series)#Episodes. How about that? David G Brault (talk)

Perhaps if we want to include a summary of episodes, we could have a separate article called List of Ramayan episodes. One thing to be cautious of though: the 16-DVD Ramayan set is not faithful to the original series. It's been heavily and crudely re-edited, sometimes with episodes ending in the middle of key scenes. An entire crucial subplot about Bharat disowning his mother Kaikeyi has been deleted. (Not to mention the fact that songs and sound effects have been re-dubbed or re-recorded, essentially losing everything that made the original series good.) If you want to write a List of Ramayan episodes article based on what you see in the series, I strongly urge you to watch either the 12-DVD set or the 26-VHS set. I can help you write this list of episodes article, as I have both the 26-VHS set and the 12-DVD set. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Comment AT WT:House

I am sorry that you think I am wikilawyering, but I understand why you might conclude this: I concede that it may well look as if a pompous, arrogant, know-it-all editor has come obnoxiously striding into a subject area and, with periphrasis and sesquepedalian legalisms, starts to bullshit about how this and that has to be done according to some policy that most innocent fans have never heard of or were aware existed. That I have provoked the ire of one inclusionist editor in the debate to now wikistalk me in order to "undo" all the harm I am perpetrating is clear evidence that my approach has been unhelpful and counter-productive. But I think our core policies and guidelines are important - for the credibility of the project, for the maintenance of standards and to discourage the accumulation of fancrufty trivia and in-universe obsession that mitigates against what an encyclopedia should aspire to. We need to separate the (good) message from the (bad) messenger. I accept your criticisms of me and am humbled by the sincere and frank way you have delivered them. But I am dismayed that you would deprecate core policies and practices just because you suspect I am behaving like a dick. Eusebeus (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)