User talk:Kbir1/Archive 2

Work on Arachnaphobia Page

I wish to commend Hnsampat for their work on the Arachnaphobia page. Of all my browsing of the Wikipedia encyclopedia, the never-ending debate regarding pictures on the page is the most touching. I don't know much about Hnsampat, whether or not he/she is arachnaphobic or knows one, but I sincerely appreciate the work on this page. Other arachnaphobics and I, surely, wish to access information on this phenomenon- and the paralyzing fear that I myself feels when I see so much as a picture of a spider would prevent that if it wasn't for Hnsampat and other caring users like him or her. Just wanted to say thanks! ~Ailec. 72.160.156.5 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for your kind words! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirecting

When redirecting pages ([1], [2]), remember to de-link them on the pages to which you redirected them (in this case, List of characters on The West Wing). BuddingJournalist 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me! --Hnsampat (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC

Messages to me

In future do not message me. It's obnoxious and I don't want it. On the record, there are many other articles that come under your umbrella of "subjective opinion". Get out of your pathetic little world that obsesses over things like The West Wing of all things and consider jumping into a lake. Work it out. It's a matter of his style and his appearance. I can concede that the "unusually conservative" line probably isn't wise and removing that wouldn't encourage my objection. My objection is to the complete removal of the section. It comments on his style and taste - thats the character's style and taste and it's perfectly legitimate given the popularity of the show. It occurs to me that you don't like it being there because you didn't write it, or it doesn't come under your idea of fact. I'm sorry but it is fact. It's a comment about the character's style. Obvious from the DIALECT of the show and the VISUALS of the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.65.253 (talk)

As I requested on your talk page, please assume good faith. It's not fair for you to essentially accuse me of claiming ownership over the article simply because you and I have a content dispute. Just to clarify, I'm not questioning that Leo wears suits. I'm questioning how notable that information is. Has it been commented upon by the show's creators? Has it been reported in reliable secondary sources? I feel like we don't really have enough information to comment on what his "taste" and "style" are. We're extracting information from the show based on our own interpretation. That is original research. So, as you see, I feel your addition suffers from a number of problems, including original research and lack of notability.

Remember, because Wikipedia is by definition the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, you will probably find many articles out there that have these same issues, but they, too, will be in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm merely doing my part in helping this particular article comply with those policies and guidelines. Now, I'm aware that I cannot and, indeed, should not be a one-man "police force," which is why I brought the matter up on the talk page. Whatever the consensus is, that's what we go with. If you would not like to be contacted on your talk page, I'll respect that, but then please respond either here or offer your opinion on Talk:Leo McGarry#Leo's appearance?. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you noticed but I chose to ignore you're suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.23.224 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia works by consensus. I'm trying to work with you to build a consensus, which is why I keep insisting that you contribute to the discussion on the talk page. Right now (with 2 contributions), that discussion isn't going in your favor. If a stronger consensus builds, then the policies of Wikipedia will dictate that the "Appearance and Taste" section be removed. If you then choose to ignore that consensus, it will be seen as disruptive by the Wikipedia community. If, however, you rationally lay out your arguments on the talk page, you may find consensus working in your favor. Come on, we're all trying to make the article the best it can be, right? Let's work together instead of arguing, huh? Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Redirect

I think Gregory House MD needs to be redirected back to Gregory House. This is the only Gregory House on Wikipedia and chances are that people are expecting to see a House character when they put in "Gregory House" in the searchbox not a disambiguation page. I think that the page needs to be redirected back to Gregory House but the article should also have a link to a disambiguation page on top of it. Any thoughts? мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I would have done it myself, but I don't have the admin privileges to undo the article move. We should put in a request at WP:RM. --Hnsampat (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON Slant

Dear Hnsampat, Thank you for writing the comment on the Hinduism discussion broad. I have been battling these iskconites for 7 long months now. Every article and every paragraph. All of the editors who deal with the Hindu articles are very much aware of it, especially shruti14. And, have warned and chastized these iskconite editors. Please look at my userpage and comments on several of the articles...and you'll see what I mean. Wikidas is the main culprit when it comes to iskconizing articles and another one is GaurangaUK.Please contact me if you want to. Please read the following message.............Dear Shruti,Thank you for inviting me to help with the Sri Sampradayam article. But, I think that I will holding off for a while with any editing. I looked at the information that wikidas put, and , again it is utter non-sense. The Sri Sampradayam goes back BEFORE the first century B.C., He put 10th century a.d. I also looked at his information that he put on the svayam bhavam article, at alot of it is non-sense and supporting his I.S.K.C.O.N cult veiw. Every thing he writes is with this iskcon cult flavor. His information is absolutely off and just fantasy in certain places, and other editors have mentioned this. But, the one thing that upsets me, is that everyone LETS him put these erronious edits and information. I believe he has really marred the truth and information on many articles. Alot of his information is not trust-worthy. And, I think people should be warned about it. Every editor contributing to any Hindu articles has let him do this. He has even recieved praise for his edits! Look at his discussion section. But, what really gets me, is that he writes EVERY THING with his Iskcon cult slant. I have asked every one for help with him...and nothing. If I had the time, I would make this into a Legal matter. Please, this is not directed to you, please dont take it personally. This is a very serious matter; with his non-sense cult information and no one in the wiki-community really cares. Wikidas and other iskcon-ites, before and during my stint wikipedia, have tinted most of the hindu articles with their particular cult flavor. Sincerely,GovindaGovinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jenny Curran

Please merge talk page then, to prevent confusion with second nomination.--67.176.175.133 (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

This page has plenty of Keeps mixed amongst the Deletes and Merges.--67.176.175.133 (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nm, you're right (I didn't read through the full nomination, sorry).--67.176.175.133 (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Danny Heater

Why did you undo my revision that he is a person of note to Germantown, MD? By Wikipedia standards, he is. Unless solid reasoning is used for this I am going to re-add him. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies about having reverted your addition. I made a mistake. The Germantown, Montgomery County, Maryland article is a frequent target for vandals who like to add their own name to the "Persons of Note" section and then make some stuff up about how great they are. I didn't know who Danny Heater was and so when you added it, I mistook your edit for another one of those instances of vandalism and that's why I reverted it. I didn't realize until after you messaged me that Danny Heater has his own Wikipedia article and that he is indeed a very real and very notable individual. Sorry about that! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I was baffled by the removal of him. It's all good. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)}

Re: Edit warrior at Leo McGarry

I've requested semi-protection for the article - hopefully the anon IP will either lose interest when they realise they have to have a registered account to edit, or they'll decide they are prepared to discuss it on the talk page. Cheers, and thanks for the heads-up.  This flag once was red  11:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Update: the request for semi-protection was declined; fair enough I think, as the anon IP only struck once this time. If they start edit-warring again it would definitely be worth re-listing it, though. Cheers,  This flag once was red  12:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Update, take two: they're back! And this they seem to have given up any pretence of being a genuine editor. I think we can safely stop assuming good faith. They've been reverted; if they persist I think we have a fairly good case for semi-protection, given that they threaten that they have an army of 30 sock puppets and access to numerous IP addresses. Anyway, I'm not doing anything just yet - I'll wait and see. All the best,  This flag once was red  09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

...and they're blocked, and the article is back to normal. So far their threats to edit war with their army of socks has come to naught.  This flag once was red  10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

In medias res

I am the editor that added the fact and citation here.[3] I basically just rephrased the fact as written in the cited encyclopedia. Where did you try to verify the fact? Did you try a reference library with the same edition of the encyclopedia? dissolve^talk 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

R Adams Cowley

raised issue on his talkpage. Looking forward to learning. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Removing Carmen Argenziano from the House template

Please explain why his name was removed. He appeared in more than two episodes and was a notable character, given that House liked him. If Leeghton Meester's name is on there, having only done two episodes, I do not see why Carmen Argenziano should be removed. 64.180.109.136 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. For some reason I thought that he was somebody who was scheduled to appear as a guest star this season. I didn't realize that he was the guy who played Henry Dobson. It's okay to have him there. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

no worries.

Thank you for explaining! Sorry if I seemed very robotic-- I'm a technical writer in the making. :o) 64.180.109.136 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The West Wing FAR

The West Wing has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Great job "protecting" The West Wing lately... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hnsampat (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I do not know where you would prefer that I write, so please by all means direct me. Concerning your deletion of and comments about my recent insertion into the West Wing 'Realism' section. My comments about the lack of underarm perspiration were genuinely not intended to be humorous, and certainly not intended to be fatuous, they were both accurate and topical. I believe it is extremely odd and rather creepy to sanitize a show in this way- do you not? While the point may be irrelevant to the spirit of the show, it is not irrelevant to the making of a realistic film, and I believe there are many people who consider the show to be highly realistic. What's the point of a section on Realism, if not to air aspects of the show's realism? Your curt and rather patronising response to my insertion leads me to the unavoidable conclusion that any further attempt to include my views in the section will be met with increasingly vindictive reaction on your part. Please excuse me for interfering in 'your' article; you win, I lose. Enjoy your power. Mygodfrey (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't mean to appear patronizing or to discourage you from making any further edits to the article. From the tone of the section that you had added, I made the mistake of assuming bad faith on your part. I'm sorry about that and please do by all means continue to contribute constructively to the article on The West Wing (which is not "my" article by any means; remember nobody owns an article). All of that being said, however, the section that you added is inappropriate, simply because it constitutes original research. The rules of Wikipedia forbid us from figuring things out on our own and then publishing them in Wikipedia. Instead, Wikipedia requires that all information submitted be referenced to independent, third-party sources. Plus, when discussing the realism of the show, the idea is to talk about the realism of the story and the plotlines, not the minute details. But, that's not the main point. The main point is that what you added constitutes original research and therefor it cannot be included. This isn't my decision; it's how the rules of Wikipedia are set up. Thanks for understanding. --Hnsampat (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving List of characters on The West Wing

Hey buddy! Long time, no speak! I hope everything's going alright with you.

I was wondering about your decision to move List of characters on The West Wing and List of politicians on The West Wing to List of characters in The West Wing and List of politicians in The West Wing. Characters are on a TV show, are they not? If we talk about politicians in The West Wing, aren't we talking about people who work in an actual place called the West Wing?

Let me know what you think! --Hnsampat (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

And I hope the same for you : )

As for your question:

List of <created items> in <a creative work>.

So for example: List of characters in The West Wing.

As for "on": Consider that "on" is due to the coloquialism of suggesting that a presentation is presented "on" television", and that "in-universe" objects/subjects/characters are "in" the creative work being presented "on" television.

When it's a list of real-life "items", then it's the reverse of the above: List of The West Wing writers.

This allows the name to help disambiguate, and prevents several possible confusions that have come up. (And also deals with the fact that we don't italicise the names of works.)

And yes, lists have been in all sorts of conventions, this is an attempt to have them follow what seems to be past consensus at WP:CFD. (For another fiction-related convention, see also the naming convention for comics lists at WP:NCC.) - jc37 23:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vibhishan and Mandodari articles

my friend vibhishana wasa fucking traitor he wasa filthy and low man who married his sister in law after killing his brother please do not delete his evils which i write in his page and please do not remove the evils of amndodari which i write in the page of mandodari she was evil too who married her brother in law her husband's murderer and later had sex with him.

please do not remove thr truth it has been stated in ramchritmanas that vibhishana married mandodari after ravan's death to fuck her cunt.

please don't support evil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.69.226.2 (talk)

Wow, you have clearly expressed that you have a POV agenda in the edits that you are making to these articles. This is absolutely unacceptable and is a strong violation of Wikipedia's rules. If you continue to do that, you will get blocked from editing. And, besides, what you are saying is absolutely incorrect. You cite the Ramcharitmanas, but I can tell you, having read the Ramcharitmanas cover-to-cover, that it DOES NOT SAY that Vibhishan married Mandodari. I say again, it DOES NOT SAY THAT in the Ramcharitmanas. If you think I'm mistaken, then please quote the exact verses that prove me wrong. But, please do not (DO NOT) use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your own views. If you do that, administrators will intervene and it could result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you very much for understanding. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ MY ANSWER ON RAMAYANA

DON'T ACT LIKE A MORON AND DO NOT SUPPORT EVIL THAT THING ABOUT VIBHISHANA MARRYING MANDODARI AFTER RAMAYANA'S DEATH HAS BEEN CLEARY STATED IN RAMCHARITMANAS BY TULSIDAS

HERE I QUOTE FROM ORIGINAL RAMCHARITMANAS FROM GOOGLE BOOKS.

JUST LOOK AT THESE LINKS.

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1049731

POSTED BY ME BY NAME OF 'SACCY_MYBABA'

I AM A BRAHMIN AND I DON'T LIE.

here i have posted all the VITAL LINKS.

AND ONE MORE THING

THE ONLY WORSE THING THAN EVIL IS 'COVERING UP THE EVIL'

DON'T DO THAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.69.226.2 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't seem to get the links to work. Could you please write out the exact verse from Tulsidas that you say supports your position? Please understand that I don't think you're lying. I just think that you're mistaken. But, if you are actually correct, then please write out the verse from Tulsidas that you say supports you. (Also, I noticed in your post on the outside forum that you said that Valmiki has supposedly written that Vibhishan married Mandodari. Please cite the exact verses for that as well.) Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

RfA

I seem to recall that I've asked you about this before, but got distracted by RL in the midst of discussion.

Would adminship be something you might be interested in?

While considering, you may wish to read WP:ADMIN, Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools, and the overview at Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. - jc37 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be, yes. :) Would you be interested in nominating me? --Hnsampat (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure.

That said, I'd like to wait at least a week. To allow for me to formulate some nomination text (smile), and to give you a chance to read over the above. You should be able to fairly knowledgeably answer questions about at least "some" of the responsibilities that go along with adminship. For example, check out my typical questions here, and think about how you might answer them.

Also, consider what areas of where admins typically contribute, that you might be interested in helping out at. - jc37 00:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you done any reading/thinking since the above? - jc37 10:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! I'm glad that you wrote, because I was going to ask you if you could maybe hold off on the RfA for the next 10 or so days. I've been uber-busy for the past week and will continue to be until early next week. I have not yet had a chance to go over the above reading in-depth or to really prepare. But, I think I'll be ready if we start the RfA sometime after Christmas. Thanks for your help! :) --Hnsampat (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MY FINAL ANSWER ON RAMAYNA

HERE IS THE LINK FROM RAMCHARITMANAS WHICH PROVES THAT VIBHISHANA MARRIED MANDODARI AFTER RAVANA'S DEATH AND EVEN HAD SEX WITH HER

http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:ihyTqgSMrzsJ:www.new.dli.ernet.in/data/upload/0047/947/TXT/00000033.txt+vibhishana+repeated+crime+of+vali&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.69.226.2 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the link you provided doesn't provide proof of anything. I have seen that text before, as a footnote in the Gita Press edition of the Ramcharitmanas. Those are NOT the words of Tulsidas. They are the editor's comments. The editor does not cite his source, however. All Tulsidas says is that Rama forgives his devotees' "transgressions", without every saying what those transgressions are. The editor makes assumptions that this means Sugriva married Tara and Vibhishan married Mandodari. However, this is NEVER stated by Tulsidas himself. Thus, while this may be proof enough for you, it is not proof enough for Wikipedia. An editor's uncited comment is NOT a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

NEW LINK

TRY MY LINKS ON SAME SUNJECT THERE IS ABUNDANT OF PROF THAT VIBHISHANA MARRIED MANDODARI

AND THOSE WERE NOT THE COMMENTS OF EDITORS THOSE VERSES WERE WRITTEN BY TULSIDAS JI.

http://www.india-forums.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1049731 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.69.226.2 (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

First, please stop typing in all-caps. It's considered "shouting." Moreover, I don't know how much clearer I can make this, but you're dead wrong. I own a copy of the Gita Press version of the Ramcharitmanas and I can tell you for a fact that these statements are from the footnoted comments of the editor and are NOT from the verses of Tulsidas. Look, there's really no point in us continuing to argue this back and forth. There are many, many, MANY versions of the Ramayana out there, and it's possible that Vibhishan married Mandodari in some versions, but not in others. Right now, I see no reliable evidence of Valmiki or Tulsidas having stated that Vibhishan married Mandodari, but it's quite possible that other authors did say that. Rather than continuing to argue like this back and forth, how about doing this? How about you go and find some commentary by reliable sources (such as university scholars on the Ramayana, academic journals, or original texts, but NOT Internet blogs and forums) talking about how opinions on Vibhishan differ, how most see him as a devotee but how some see him as a traitor or otherwise in a negative light? Let's try to work around our differences instead of continuing to bash heads. Okay? (Remember, Wikipedia works through compromise and consensus. We won't give undue weight to any minority or fringe opinion, but at the same time, Wikipedia won't favor one point of view over another if multiple valid points of view exist.) --Hnsampat (talk) 02:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE READ

IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO YOU BY READING VALMIKI RAMAYANA THAT SUGRIVA HAD SEX WITH TARA DURING MONSOON SEASON.

NOW READ THIS PAGE VERSE NO.43 IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED THAT WIDOW TARA MAARIED SUGRIVA.READ VERSE NO 43 OF THIS LINK.

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/kishkindha/sarga24/kishkindha_24_frame.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.69.226.2 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the verse in question. Here is what it says: "'You will get paramount appeasement as before, and your son will become the crown prince, God has ordained destiny only in that way. Wives of the valiant ones will not mourn emotionally.' Thus Rama consoled Tara." Below that is some commentary by the translator who says that Hindu women are permitted to re-marry. However, neither in the verse itself nor in the commentary is there anything saying that Tara married Sugriva. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Primay Colors

Hey there! Just wanted to know why you keep undoing my work. You don't own the page and if you give me time I will add enough content that it wont be a stub. So I don't see what I removed as necessary. You could have put it back on and left what I added but you deleted it just because you didn't write it. I'll remind you that this is a community and you do not have ownership of any article. I'll leave it up for now so as not to ruffle your obviously sensative feather. Just don't mess with stuff that I add that is legitimate info. Thanks, I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.3.185 (talk) 22:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, buddy. Don't presume that I'm assuming "ownership" of the page. What I saw you doing was that you were removing both a stub tag and a hidden comment without providing any explanation. If you had written in your edit summary that you were planning on expanding the article or, better still, if you had expanded the article and then removed the stub tag, we wouldn't have had a problem. So, I reverted your edit. In the course of doing so, however, I didn't realize that I removed some actual content as well. I apologize for that. It was an accident, not an act of bad faith. Please remember to use the edit summary in the future and please don't be so hasty to get so accusatory. Remember to always assume good faith. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Addressing copyright concerns

Thank you for noting your copyright concerns with Hospice care in the United States. Investigation of the matter is ongoing, and you are invited to contribute to that at the article's talk page. Should you encounter copyright problems in the future, however, please try to notify the contributor of the copyrighted material as directed by the template you placed on the article. This not only allows him or her the opportunity to address these concerns—possibly resolving them through the temporary page revision or one of the permissions processes—but also and more importantly may educate him or her about our copyright policies, preventing Wikipedia from inadvertently being used to infringe copyright in the future. It is also a useful first step in identifying recalcitrant copyright infringers so that, if necessary, they may be eventually blocked for the protection of the project. As currently devised procedure for admins at the copyright problems board requires that contributors be given 7 days notice prior to closure of these matters. I have notified the contributor of this material, so, as I said, this notice is more by a way of a heads up for future use. Again, thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Bhagat Singh

Hnsampat, you may think that you have a "neutral" point of view on Indian history, but clearly you don't if you think that narrating facts that may make you uncomfortable define neutrality. These websites and public forums are a great way to share information, but it is also sad that people cannot always keep their biases at home. If you want to have a selective take on Indian history that's a problem that I cannot help you with! Don't email me about your intellectual limitations. I don't like to receive SPAM. Good luck!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divyanarayan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not injecting my own biases. On the contrary, I'm asking you not to inject your biases. The edit that you made (which I have undone) injects your own commentary into the article. In particular, the critique you write of the book may be valid, but you don't cite any source and so I have to presume that you're injecting your own viewpoint, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thanks for understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Hnsampat,

I really dont understand why did you delete my comment on Randhir Singh? Could you please explain what was wrong in it. And if you had any reason, why did you not care to explain before striking it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian sikh guy (talk • contribs) 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch with me. The comments that you added were injecting your own POV and analysis into the article (i.e., you were openly questioning Randhir Singh's motives and were discussing things that you thought were "possibly" or "most likely" true). Wikipedia requires that all articles maintain a neutral point of view. Also, all claims, especially controversial ones, must be cited using reliable sources. The source that you cited, namely an atheist website, did not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Hence, I deleted your addition.

That being said, I'm a bit concerned about the article as it stands right now. The possibility that you brought up about Randhir Singh is something that has crossed my own mind as well. I'm also a bit concerned about the sources currently used to back up the various claims about Randhir Singh; I'm not sure if those sources are reliable enough per Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps you could contribute to the ongoing discussion at Talk:Bhagat Singh and we can reach some kind of agreement?

Thanks for your help and understanding! --Hnsampat (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply. I am a very strong believer of not injecting my POV while discussing history, let alone taking time to edit something on wikipedia. I have nothing against Randhir Singh. Being a sikh, I know how desperately the sikh community wants to hide the fact that Bhagat Singh was an atheist, whereas everything about Bhagat Singh states that he was an atheist. I have seen several so called religious preachers in sikhism who distort historical facts to their advantage. Thus I dont see the claim by Randhir Singh as a sufficient evidence. Never did I say that Randhir Singh was a liar, all I said is that he had vested interest in claiming that he was able to change Bhagat Singh's ideology towards atheism. This would give an immediate boost to his credibility among sikhs. And a person as learned as Bhagat Singh did not write a word about his change in mind, little difficult to believe. There are other hiccups in the story. Which picture of Bhagat Singh (hair uncut) are they talking about ? I have not seen any. Could you show me the picture with date. Why would Britishers oppose to a simple thing as taking amrit? There are just too many loopholes in the story and thus my point is that it has to be taken with a grain of salt, or maybe a little more than a grain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian sikh guy (talk • contribs) 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not satisfied with the Randhir Singh story, either. And, like I said, I question the reliability of the sources used in the article right now to back up the Randhir Singh story (one is from Randhir Singh himself and one is a third party citing Randhir Singh's autobiography). If you take a look at Talk:Bhagat Singh, there's an extensive discussion about this subject there, largely involving a single user. There does appear to be this sense of denial among some people regarding Singh's atheism. The picture in question is probably this one: [4]. In the past, people have put this photo in the article claiming it was taken several days before Singh's execution. It shows Singh with unshorn hair and a beard. I don't think that just having long hair and a beard is proof enough that Singh had "re-embraced" his Sikhism in his last days. But, just now, as I was searching for this photo via Google, I found several websites (none of them "reliable" enough by Wikipedia's standards) saying that this picture is actually from 1927, when Singh was first arrested (i.e., BEFORE he shaved his beard and cut his hair to begin with!) So, there are indeed a lot of issues and none of them have a lot of proof surrounding them. I think there needs to be a serious discussion on Talk:Bhagat Singh about all of this. Would you like to get such a discussion started there? Feel free to use some of my points here in doing so. Good luck! --Hnsampat (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, just read the whole "hoop-la" happening in Bhagat Singh Article about whether he became a Sikh again or remained an Atheist. Honestly, I find it really sickening that people have downplayed his patriotism for their own political agendas. I agree with your observation that growing your hair and beard does not imply your reembracing Sikhism. When I studied at Punjab Public School in Nabha, this photo was hanging in one of the rooms and our teacher told us it was Bhagat Singh when he was first arrested during his non-violence Gandhi/Congress days. Personally, it made much more sense.

So this was my two cents that I posted at Bhagat Singh:

I just read the passage and here are my two cents. Whether Bhagat Singh became a Sikh again or not, you guys can argue that all you want. The only problem I have is with whoever wrote the paragraph has no concept or logic in what patriotism or nationalism is. Bhagat Singh would never say he felt "ashmaed" for what he had to do because he was first a foremost a true son of India and he was fighting for his motherland. Even if he had to cut his hair to fool the British, there was no shame in it, nor did that make any less of anything, his cutting his hair was a greater show of devotion to the values instilled by Guru Gobind Singh in teching us to fight the invaders at any cost, even if it means that you must sacrifice something you may or may not hold dear. But to say he was "ashamed" just reflects on how small minds think when they try to understand or interpret the actions of greater minds, which are clearly beyond their grasp.

Chote log, choti baatein.

That is where I have a serious problem. If people do not understand Bhagat Singh's love for his country, his people and freedom, then please do not degrade him to the level of idiots who cannot comprehend his noble spirit.

End of my statement.

So there you have it, all I can do is roll my eyes and wonder how many village bumpkins does it take drive a man insane and ruin the glorious history of a man who truly defined the word Nationalism and undying love for his motherland. Instead of glorifying his sacrifice, they are making a mockery of it, and to top it off they are completely oblivious to the fact of what damage they are doing to Bhagat Singh. Because these people are not of the stock that could sacrifice for the nation, they are measuring and sizing up Bhagat Singh to their degraded and selfish level. How could they understand Bhagat Singh, when they probaly have no concept of what sacrifice and love for the nation truly means.

You're doing a great job, keep it up, don't let the illiterates push a false picture of one the greatest revolutionaries of all time (sadly his life was cut too short) otherwise people whould have known about him as they do about Che.

Cheers and Godspeed.

And I will try and find a solid reference for the Terance quote I put up.

Jai Hind!

Gorkhali (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Godfather

While it is true about the connection between oranges and death in the Godfather films, just because Vito is eating an orange does not make it an orange grove. He is eating from a bowl with a variety of fruit in it. Grapes and a pear are also visible. Plus, you can clearly see the tomatoes in the garden. It is also clearly stated in a deleted scene from the film that he's growing tomatoes and it's also in the book. He's also drinking wine, that does not make it a vineyard. Anyway, please stop changing it. Thank you. MrBlondNYC (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. Thanks for the correction! --Hnsampat (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Might I also suggest watching the movie before reverting further edits? Indeed, the entire scene was him and his grandson playing in the tomato garden. His final collapse clearly shows him clutching two tomato vine poles on the way down. Watch the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.21.79 (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No need to get nasty. I had watched the movie immediately before changing the article. And, like I said, I made a mistake. Assume good faith. --Hnsampat (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ramayan (TV series)

Hello, for the TV series article, a google news search yields interesting results. Hope this helps, also when done with main Ramayana, I will try to join and add my 2 cents! Cheers! --Nvineeth (talk) 06:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

House

Hi, you appear to be one of the main contributors to the House article. I will take it to FAc somewhere next week, if you have any comments on the article before it's nominated, please notify me. Thanks.--Music26/11 15:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Germantown

Thanks for the help on my additions to Germantown history. I was wondering why some of my links wern't going anywhere. - Andy 68.48.57.3 (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Leo McGarry

Hi Hnsampat

You're one of those editors whose edits I don't bother checking - when I see you've edited an article on my watchlist I know the edit won't be vandalism so I ignore it. Consequently I feel a bit sheepish about admitting that I've reverted you...!

I saw the edit you reverted when it was first made - in fact I queried it with the editor. It turns out that the edit does make sense - it's so that "MacX" and "McX" appear in lists before other names.

Hope that makes sense, and apologies for reverting you. If you still have an issue with this I certainly don't intend to edit war over it.

Best wishes, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That does indeed make sense. :) --Hnsampat (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and religion

Hello. I have seen that Sikh-history have reverted you edition in Vegetarianism and religion. Although I think you are right, and a lot of texts talks about the strong connection between vegetarianism and Hinduism, I suggest you no continue editing it to be true and neutral. Sikh-history is some sort of fanatic against vegetarianism. Although he persistently says that he is too vegetarian (I think he does to try to appear neutral in their editions), he did a lot of continuous effort to remove connections in the articles between the religions and vegetarianism (especially at Hinduism, where deny the importance of the no "violence" to the animals is absurd, and Sikhism, where are too a lot of people that think vegetarianism is associate to that religion). He continually say, which is very suspect because he did as a way to justify his supposed neutrality that himself is vegetarian, but the true is that he will not respect reliables sources or anything that says that some religions are connected with vegetarianism (I suspect that one day he will come and say to everything that Jainism is a religion of meat-lovers too) and try to discuss that with him is a wasting of time. Some other people tried to do in articles about vegetarianism and religion, but when Sikh-history edits an article, that now belongs to he. 90.163.27.119 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. If there is indeed a persistent problem involving attempts to claim "ownership" of an article, edit-warring, and failure to respect consensus, then I strongly suggest that you raise the issue at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents. That way, administrators will get involved and might help remedy the situation. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, you cannot revert a reference without discussing it. You are breaking your own rules. Please discuss before reverting.For the record I cannot be a vegetarian and be fanatically against it. I am against fanatics that make vegetarians look bad.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The West Wing cast list

There was no consensus to change the order, and the MoS is to list cast members as they appear (which includes Lowe first finishing with And credit for Sheen) and to combine the full list of all members of a cast who were billed on the opening credits. The current list with Lowe first and Smits and Sheen last fits that. As the cast list remained like this for years before it was reverted and was put back to it after it was reverted and left for ten months the consensus (by inertia) is to keep the list as it has been, and as fits the TV MoS. LOST is an FA and it uses the billed whole season layout, further to that Arrested Development shows the use of non-alphabetical billing. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you that there was "no consensus." If you look at Talk:The West Wing#Cast order in infobox, three users on separate occasions objected to the cast list as it existed at the time (which had Alda first and Sheen last). I then made a suggestion to change the cast order, which was then agreed to by one of those users. I do not think it is proper for you to completely disregard this discussion as not being a proper consensus. Please remember that silence can indicate consensus and I believe that is what happened in this case. Also, I searched high and low and can't seem to find anywhere in WP:TVMOS that says what order we should put the cast in. However, I won't make a fuss about it as I do think that the current cast order is an improvement on the previous one and I am mindful of the fact that consensus can change. Just please remember to not disregard talk page discussions like that in the future. Thanks! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Q102josh

Welcome to the wonderful world of daring to revert an edit made by this guy. You recently reverted his addition of "significant" episodes on ER, which he has already reverted with no rationale for inclusion and no edit summary. As you will soon find, he will not discuss to consensus, totally ignores messages on his talk page, edit wars regularly, rarely accepts another point of view, and feels total and complete ownership of anything to do with ER. You can't work with the guy at all. I took a 24 hour block for 3RR to get him one and hopefully slow him down, to utterly no effect. I've been one of several trying to get him to understand what an attending physician is, why it's not redundant to list someone's job as physician and job title as attending physician, and worst, to grasp when Carter became an attending, which he thinks was automatic when Carter finished training (the date of which he can't get right.) I've had more fun beating my head against a brick wall. You're tenacious - I've seen your edits for West Wing. Good thing. You'll need to be. Good luck! Drmargi (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should raise the issue again at WP:ANI. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo to you for getting him to discuss. It's a first! Now maybe I can get him to recognize that Intern and Resident don't carry the term physician, but Attending does. Miracles can happen. Drmargi (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Signifigant Episodes

Yeah honestly i don't know what constitutes a "significant episode" either... the only reason i included them is because they all have their own page, and they're the only episodes to have their own page, so i figured for the time being, we may as well include them... but if someone wants to redo the section with different criteria and make pages for other episodes, i wouldn't be averse to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Q102josh (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Usually, if we just want to have a list of links to various episodes, then that's what List of ER episodes is for. (See, for example, List of The Wire episodes.) If we want to include the episodes on the navbox, then we'll have to have objective criteria for "significance"...and, frankly, I don't think there's a neutral way to do that. So, I say we get rid of that from the navbox and focus on creating pages for the notable episodes via List of ER episodes. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, i see what you're saying. That sounds like a plan.Q102josh (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Washington Freedom home

I don't understand why you would remove this item from the initial paragraph. It is one of the most significant facts about Germantown. If you would want to rectify the redundency, then remove the listing under "Buisneses and Government agencies" 69.143.200.164 (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason why we should put that in the first paragraph and not put other things in the first paragraph, such as the fact that the U.S. Department of Energy has one of its main facilities in Germantown or the fact that several biotech companies (e.g., Qiagen) have their headquarters there. It is definitely notable that the Washington Freedom are based in Germantown, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we put them front and center. The lead paragraphs should only include the most important information about the subject of the article. Are there any OBJECTIVE criteria by which we can judge Washington Freedom to be the most important thing to come out of Germantown? --Hnsampat (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I direct your attention to any number of Wikipedia sites on suburban locations that are home to major league teams including (but not limited to): Foxborough,MA, Arlington,Texas, East Rutherford,New Jersey, and the list could go on and on and on (in fact, I challenge you you find the article on ANY suburban location home to a major league team that doesnt mention it within the first two paragraphs of the main introduction) . In fact Germantown has been featured twice on national television (ESPN and CBS) due to the location of The Washington Freedom (I don't recall Qiagen or a Dept. of Energy Administrative Compound (which I was the one who added the info in the history of the compound and added it to the list of local buisnesses, by the way) featured recently on national television. Why don't you just admit that you are sexist, and feel that a womens major league team is not as significant as a male team, even though people travel hundreds of miles to attend games at the Germantown location. 69.143.200.164 (talk) 03:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Andy

First of all, you won't get far on Wikipedia (or life in general) if you resort to wild, out-of-the-blue personal attacks just because somebody disagrees with you. On Wikipedia, all it will do is get you blocked. Now, to address your points. Because Wikipedia is the online encyclopedia that anybody can edit, you can't just look at a whole bunch of articles and use that to establish a "precedent". We deal with issues on an article-by-article basis. Remember, because anybody can edit any article, people can create articles and write them in ways that violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Therefore, just because other articles do it doesn't make it right. But, since you told me to look for a an article on a suburban location home to a major league team that doesn't mention it in the first two paragraphs of the main introduction, I direct you towards the Landover, Maryland article, which does not state until the middle of the article that it is home to the Washington Redskins. I also direct you towards WP:LEAD, which explains that the purpose of the lead paragraphs is to "define the subject of the article" and provide the most important points about it. The Washington Freedom are obviously very important and very notable, but would you define Germantown as "the place where the Washington Freedom play soccer"? I mean, if you're writing an article on The White House, then obviously it's important to say that the White House is "the place where the President of the United States lives". But, would you be like, "Germantown, Maryland, is first and foremost, above all else, the place where the Washington Freedom play soccer"? No, you would not. That is why I think that it is important to have the Washington Freedom in the article, but not to have them in the first paragraph. I hope this is clear to you. I'd be more than willing to continue to discuss this with you, provided that you remain civil and don't resort to baseless personal attacks in the future. Thank you very much. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, I agree that my "sexist" comment was out of line and I apologize. I still disagree with your decision, but as you have much more experience with these things than I do, I yeild to your point of view.69.143.200.164 (talk) 02:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Andy

@sam seaborn

can u specify any in-universe tone problems? thanks. BingoBob 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

At the time that I placed that tag, almost 2 years ago, the article was almost exclusively plot summary. Since then, it has improved and included real-world information (e.g., the "Character development" section). But, I do think it still needs more real-world information and less plot summary. The article is on the right track, though. --Hnsampat (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Thing

Oh yeah, I forgot to log in before I signed the comment properly, so it showed up with my IP instead of my Amandev Singh account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.72.200 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Hnsampat! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 265 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Arun Govil - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Sameer Rajda - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Mulraj Rajda - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

C. J. Cregg

Just wondering about your revert on this article. You said IMDb is not a good source for Wikipedia. I'm no expert but I know it's a comprehensive site, owned by Amazon and, according to its Wikipedia article, which itself is mainly unreferenced and is heavily POV ridden, does have editorial control. I wonder, is there a more reputable source than IMDb that provides the same breadth of coverage. This is not a case of "we don't accept them 'cos they don't accept us", is it? Mister Flash (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. No, it's not a matter of "we don't accept them 'cos they don't accept us." Although there is editorial control and some rudimentary fact-checking at IMDb, the information put there is not thoroughly fact-checked before it is added to the website, especially in the "trivia" and "goofs" sections. (I have personal experience in this.) There isn't an official policy or guideline with Wikipedia with regard to citing IMDb, but the general consensus I've seen in my time on Wikipedia is that IMDb is not considered a reliable source. For more, check out Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. I hope this clarifies! --Hnsampat (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You are generally right. The trivia and goofs, and anything else that can be submitted by users, are not reliable for the same reason Wikipedia is not. However the cast lists and episode guides are usually reliable, and that's what we are talking about here.

Incidentally, there is never a point in reverting a statement supported by a doubtful source to a statement for which there is no source whatsoever. You also might like to take note of the "Failed proposal" tag at the top of Wikipedia:Citing IMDb. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but note this diff here: [5]. IMDb doesn't seem to be internally consistent, which brings into question its reliability as a source for this information. Remember, ALL of the content on IMDb is user-submitted, subject to some (but inadequate for our purposes) screening. --Hnsampat (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also a good point, and I'm not going to dispute that change. (Although it also raises the question - are we sure that C.J. isn't 'credit only' in any of the other 150 or so episodes. Wikipedia is a process of continuous improvement. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Donald Duck vandalism

Almost 5 years old? That might be a record, at least for discovered ones. And what the hell is it with pie and vandals? I find "I like pie" all over the place. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ASA 529

Hi! Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlantic_Southeast_Airlines_Flight_529&curid=4249837&diff=353913543&oldid=350409251

The sources discussing survivor's guilt do single out Kennedy out of everyone else. Also, Adair died of a heart attack, but I do not have any information regarding whether the crash contributed to the heart attack, so I singled her out like that. If the crash did not contribute to her heart attack, then she was a survivor who died anyway. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Just because the source does doesn't mean we should." - Wikipedia is generally based on secondary sources, so the logical reasonings, conclusions, and details are based on what the sources say. If someone had used Kennedy as an example without using a secondary source that explicitly says "So and so felt guilty about not helping people, including Mr. A.," then the edit would be justifiably reverted.

However the particular source is a dead link now, so I'm hoping it becomes archived soon

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The source in question is written as a 6-part human interest story. Naturally, it's going to focus on some passengers to the exclusion of others, based on the determination of whose stories are most compelling. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore must take an objective, detached, impersonal approach to the events. As such, we cannot single out any particular individual on that flight unless we have a strong reason to note why that person is any more notable than any of the other passengers. For instance, with Air Florida Flight 90, it is appropriate to note the name of Arland Williams, who died after repeatedly passing the rescue harness on to other passengers and, consequently, had one span of the 14th Street Bridge in Washington, DC, named after him. However, as tragic as it is that Kennedy died, there is nothing in the article to suggest that his story in any way stood out from the rest, other than the fact that this particular newspaper chose to report it in detail as part of it's 6-part series on the crash. I hope this clarifies! --Hnsampat (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, that's fair enough. BTW that source was very helpful for finding a lot of information about the incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manuel Agrella

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manuel Agrella, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Agrella. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

International Spy Museum

Please see https://web.spymuseum.org/ISM_2004_general_press_release.doc. The nice folks at http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/news/spymuseum.html were kind enough to display our press release on their webpage but that hardly gives them the intellectual property rights to our press release. In addition, The International Spy Museum is the property of Milton Maltz. Raycom Media purchased Mr. Maltz's broadcast business and has no affiliation with the Museum. Please contact other@spymuseum.org with any questions.

--Quoted Text-- >> Your addition to International Spy Museum has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia >>without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other >>websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of >>information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very >>seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. --Hnsampat (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dand37 (talk • contribs)

First of all, to copy-and-paste a press release verbatim on Wikipedia is a violation of the copyright that the International Spy Museum holds on the press release, unless you can show some evidence that the International Spy Museum has released its copyright. Furthermore, since you admit that this is a press release from the International Spy Museum, and from your comments it appears that you are somehow affiliate with the museum, it appears that you are using Wikipedia for blatant advertising. This is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please do not add such material back to the article again or you will run the risk of being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you! --Hnsampat (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Ghostwriter (TV series)

You're welcome on my editing on Ghostwriter (TV series). I've just added more stuff on it if you want to check it out.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Joey the Mets fan

Can't you see that is name indicate that? Who else would have a nickname Shea if he didn't like the Mets? 74.89.115.51 (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being serious, but "Shea" is the kid's last name, not his nickname. --Hnsampat (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)