User talk:Ekantik

British Indians

I see you are a British Indian.

You might like to read these pages to understand how kind Ian Wilmut is to British Indians. He unlawfully fired the only British Indian senior scientist employed by the BBSRC.

From Daily Telegraph newspaper ( U.K. ) (3 articles)

Article 1 Article 2 Article 3

From Guardian newspaper ( U.K. ) (2 articles)

Article 1 Article 2

From the Scotsman newspaper (4 articles)

Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the editing of Ian Wilmut? You can't expect me not to edit the article on the basis that Wilmut might be racist towards Indians. Ekantik ^talk 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny that's what white people say. They always look for a reason to protect the more powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Please see Uncle Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Geron Corp possibly scammed? http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2008/petition_wilmut.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ekantik,

When was Wilmut knighted? I do not think the investiture has happen yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is does the Queen make somebody a knight or the BBC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.77.137.57 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Bhutto assasin pic

Hello! I noticed the picture you uploaded under a fair use rationale at this article was of poor quality. While pictures uploaded under fair use rationales are supposed to be of low resolution, that copy was so poor you could barely make out the assasins features or the outline of the gun he was holding.

I wanted to update the picture with my own edited version of the same pic. But I somehow ended up duplicating your copy, and because the whole point was to put it on the Bhutto article, I had to orphan your image. I hope you don't mind, and would agree to have your uploaded image deleted for being of poor quality. I retained your comprehensive fair use rationale.

Cheers!

Zaindy87 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty

Hello, as you are one of those who mainly expanded the above-mentioned article, I would like to ask you to reduce the controversy section. I know, you were a major contributor to this article, thus decided to ask you to reduce the section, and not do it for myself. I was willing to reduce this section since long time ago, but now that you're here, maybe you will feel better doing that for yourself.

The main problem of this article is, as said the GA reviewer, undue weight, and the controversy section, especially the mafia links, is amazingly huge. It needs to be cut down and reduced; there is no need to go into minute details.

Also, very long sections of criticism and controversy are frequently tagged with a request for merging and integration into the rest of the text. Please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article_structure and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article_structure for further information.

Thanks, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As for Romanov Vodka, I can't get the reason to mentioning it. Actors endorse numerous products every year. Unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work (it only states that she was chosen) -- it's non-notable. You also can't compare it to PETA and HIV drives, you know.

It might also be a good idea to rename 'commitments' to something more descriptive. The term "commitments" could have a pretty wide range of meanings. Regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm sorry, but I disagree with you in that particular case. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning endorsements of actors, as long as they are notable. Launching a new perfume is great and definitely can be mentioned, but Vodka? I can't understand the matter of making a whole section for endorsement for Vodka, when actually nothing regarding her actual work there is mentioned.

Well, the Britney Spears article is not a good template for inspiration. It has recently failed an FAC. And even if you want to do the same, remember that while her article presents numerous endorsements, you have a whole section dedicated to only one. Have a look at some FAs and you will see that there are no such mentions. But still, I repeat, I have no problem with endorsements, but there must be some significance to it. As I said above, unless there is some controversy behind it, something that is genuinely notable, a description of her work -- it's non-notable. So this one is clearly non-notable. Launching her own perfume is notable, but an endorsement for some vodka, one of thousands endorsements she may have done, is...

A BLP should provide biographical information; a new own perfume is great, and endorsements are great only for one of the above-mentioned reasons, but mentioning one of many endorsements in one section is definitely not an encyclopedic stuff. Have you seen an encyclopedia entry for some actor mentioning something of the sort? PETA and HIV drives are great causes, part of her humanitarian work, therefore very notable, as they constitute a part of her very biography.

As for "It is also not a very good practice to remove sourced/referenced information, as it may be done with good intentions but it can also be construed as vandalism." - Just to note, it doesn't apply to established editors who have been working on an article, and although I immesely appreciate your terrific work on this article, I have full right (and equal to yours) to edit this article. We better try to expand her brief career section, rather than adding things to make the article longer. I have expanded her career section, her lead, fought vandalism down the months, and impolite editors on the talk page as well; so I also can remove something which is non-notable. I'm not going to remove it now, I hope you get the matter and do it for yourself. I don't want an edit war. If you still disagree, we'll take it to some noticeboard or a better idea will be to turn to some editors, whom I met on FACs and who constantly vote on FACs, for their opinion. Then it will get clear. In fact, I believe, we both are trying to improve the article.

My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why should I have a problem with endorsements? Yes, I personally wouldn't like such section in an article I mainly work on, because my opinion of what a BLP (actors) should include and what it shouldn't is firm -- Early life-career-other work (including humanitarian work and even endorsements)-personal life (including controversies)-Media lists (including controversies)-and so forth. That's how we'll have a well-written BLP in the full sense of the word - Biography of a living person.

Now, if you want a section for her endorsements, so first of all, that's how it should be named - endorsements, not Romanov Vodka, and not only a brief mention of that. It is literally silly to have an entire section only for this Vodka. If you really want a section for endorsements, so it's better to include other endorsements too, many of these she has endorsed, and name it "endorsements" - not Romanov Vodka, which is a little part of thousand products she has endorsed.

When I say that I want to consult an editor who regularly votes on FACs, I don't mean that I want to make the article an FA, I mean that I want an opinion of an intelligent editor who knows and understands what the perfect standard for a BLP is. In fact, the article is far from reaching a GA status, let alone FA. I can assure you that if I turn to editors like Sandy, they won't support the existence of a section named Romanov Vodka.

Now, Britney Spears, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, are not good enough to serve us as rolemodels and your points that "other article has that and that, therefore this article should" are not valid, see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. They are full of gossip and data that resembles a gossip magazine at times rather than an encyclopedia. I have always used articles like Jolie, Mariah Carey and other FAs to promote INDICINE articles, but these???

No probs friend, feel free to shift this discussion. Kind regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ekantik!

I made some changes from your revision. I know what a good faith edit is, that's why I explained my reversion of the anon's addition. The fact that his edit was not a vandalism doesn't stop me from reverting it, yet assuming good faith. How many scripts can we have on one page? Why specifically Hindi? She speaks nearly ten Indian langs, no? Tulu is her mother tongue, so that's the only version that should be bracketed there.

Could you tell me please if you plan to reduce the controversy section? If you don't, please let me know. These mafia and obscenity charges sections etc deserve at most two short paragraphs each. They were never as well publicised as the celebrity big brother contro. Plus, the former (mafia links) is not even related to her directly, and, BTW, was not as famous as the Bharat Shah case for example.

I hope you find more time to come in more often. As you know, I had expanded the career section back in time, but it's still too short even when not compared to her other activities. And I repeat, other; she is, first of all, an actress. We have to highlight the fact that she is an actor, a performer; but the article, on the contrary, presents her as a celebrity, a star, a "Celebrity big brother" winner, a famous woman, an activist, which is great but secondary to the most important (and unfortunately, short) film career section. I do agree that CBB contributed much to her status, but for Shilpa, the actress, it's not as important as her acting career (I personally think she deserved every possible award for Phir Milenge. Have you seen the movie?) Do you agree with me regarding that? Do you have some idea how to expand it?

My best regards, Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ekantik!

I know very well what I can and what I cannot revert. I'm a well experienced editor. Vandalism - revert; WP:AGF edit, but still wrong - revert. You have also reverted some of my edits back in time. When I revert good faith edits, I explain my reversion in the edit summary. Whne I disagree on something, I usually do turn to the talk page, but some thigs here are just obvious. I repeat, her mother tongue is Tulu, therfore, it's the language which should appear there. If she went now to Germany and lived there for 2 year, would you agree to add a German script? I know it's a silly comparison, but that's it. The fact that she has mostly worked in Hindi cinema is not really valid. Her native tongue, that's what counts. She has also worked in Kannada and Telugu films. So what? Also see Gandhi and Satyajit Ray (FAs), there is only one foreign script for each.

Miss Bollywood is a recent event. The lead is here to summarise the article. We still don't know what the reception is, how it benefited her, how it contributed to her success, if that is notable. It is still on going. Currently, Amitji works in some 10 films or so. So what? What's the problem? We can wait and see the result. According to WP:WBA: "...the first paragraph should be short and to the point, with a clear explanation of what the subject of the page is. The following paragraphs should give a summary of the article. They should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting..." - is Shilpa (in our particular case) known for Miss Bollywood?

As for the controversies, you can see the policies and my original message on the very top of this section. I have absolutely no problem with controversies, nor does Wikipedia, but the controversy section is huge, the longest on the page, and should be reduced, as per the above-mentioned reasons. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As for National Film Awards, yeh it was a hard task, I turned to almost every possible administrator. The reason is clear: a veteran, prestigious, and the most prominent award ceremony in India, with a distinguished jury, selected by the government. The award is given by the fovernment etc etc. Oh how could you miss the film? You should see it. Shilpa was brilliant! Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Biblical references abound in Christianity-oriented articles

I agree completely with you but I don't know what to do about it that isn't going to take a lot of effort. You might want to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lutheranism, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, or Wikipedia talk:Verifiability and post a comment. Your description of the use of biblical verse to "prove the point" in liu of actual citations of secondary sources is, unfortunately, tied up in some Christians reliance on prooftexting in making an argument. They might not get your point at all. Still, the fight would be worthwhile. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian lists

Hey friend how are you? Happy New Year!!!

Yes I have done a lot of work on Indian films and lists but predominantly Bollywood which I have split by year. Due the fact that the original Tamil and Telugu list were so incomprehendable I only split them by decade and haven't cleaned them up because I have no knowledge of the films and imdb is very poor for tamil and telugu. I had strongly hoped that somebody from Indian cinema would come along and beautify them like the Bollywood films which I split by year and are now linked in Template:Bollywood. I strongly urge somebody to do the same with Tamil and Telegu films - a detailed guide by year (given the sheer amount of films) and have the Template:Tamilcinema linked with the years in Tamil film at the bottom of every article like bollywood. i'd like to see cleaned up and developed pages like Tamil films of 1972 like Bollywood films of 1972etc. Unfortunately it never seems like anybody except Shahid, Bollywood dreamz and universal hero are consistently active in this group aside from myself, let alone in Tamil or telugu cinema. pLease can somebody clean up the tamil and telegu lists and perhaps from 1950 onwards split by year like Bollywood. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Bollywood is in the middle of development. Ideally I want tamil and telugu to have pages like :

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 15:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, glad you agree amigo. Thats why I created around 70 odd locator maps a few days ago for all the countries which don't have maps and will begin adding infoboxes and the locator maps. Its a shame Jimbo can't bring himself to spare me a few words -particularly after all I;ve done for his project. Hope you are well! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^Talk? 11:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User Thylacinus cynocephalus

. Yeah, it is not the first time the user has had some more, shall we say, youthful mistakes. before the user changed their username, they had just come off a block for precisely that sort of behavior. He just removed posts to his talk page wthout answering, under the very misguided view that his actions are escaping notice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)