User talk:Hnsampat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Hello, there! 3 Mughal-e-azam 4 India related links 5 Bhagat Singh 6 Feeling Welcome 7 Problem User 8 Manu Smriti 9 Discussion on Shiv Sena & Balasaheb 10 Barnstar 11 Hnsampat 12 Well Done 13 The West Wing LPT 14 Your user page 15 TWW infoboxes 16 Character "based on" 17 Jed Bartlet disability 18 Userbox version 19 TWW broadcast history 20 Simi Garewal and Siddhartha 21 Who shot Burns? 22 Shortening "The Big Goodbye" 23 Thankyou 24 Barnstar 25 External link

[edit] Welcome!

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

[edit] Hello, there!

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] India related links

	Links for Wikipedians interested in India content
Newcomers: Welcome kit | Register: Indian Wikipedians | Network: Noticeboard | Discussionboard Browse: India | Open tasks | Deletions Contribute content: Collaboration Dashboard - India WikiProject - Wikiportal India - Indian current events - Category adoptions

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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))

[edit] 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.

[edit] Discussion on Shiv Sena & Balasaheb

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Hnsampat

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Userbox version

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.