User talk:Hipal

  1. Home
  2. Wiki




This user is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)


Archive

Archives

Question about Ad Fontes Media

[edit]

Why is the article for Ad Fontes Media controversial? I see there has been some discussion about whether or not their rating are suitable RS for Wikipedia, but I don't quite understand why there is so much energy about the article itself. Is there something in the article's history? Nowa (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The political issues (WP:CT/AP) with rating media, more prominent with All Sides. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Hipal!

[edit]
Happy New Year!

Hipal,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thank you for de-escalating the situation and for doing what you did. I appreciate the way you handled this after initially getting off to a rocky start. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct

[edit]

I won't use unreliable sources next time. Alon Alush (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Hello. I had a few questions about your recent edits on the Ed Young page that I am perplexed about.

1. Why did you remove pieces of the bio include ‘writer, speaker, artist’? Is he not an writer/author or speaker?

2. Why was the New York Times Bestselling Author section of the bio removed? You claimed ‘SOAP, COI editing’ but did not attempt to find any sources for what you removed or verify the sources that were currently there, you just removed it all? Seems more detrimental to the page than verifying and editing.

3. Could you explain why "50 Shades of They" by Ed Young, published by Creality Publishing and available on mainstream platforms like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, was removed from the bibliography? Given its relevance to Young's work in relationship counseling and its broad distribution, shouldn't it be included in his Wikipedia bibliography?

4. I’m confused as to why you added back the lifestyle section but removed the part ab Ed Young denying the report. You claimed it was an ‘interview’ in your edit. There were other editors in the talk section who agreed that this source was relevant and good prior to you removing it and it helped bring neutrality to a controversial section of a BLOP.

I’m genuinly trying to understand and i appreciate you helping me become a better Wiki Editor. Thank you 5dondons (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're repeating yourself without apparent understanding of previous discussions and policies. Continue like this, and WP:IDHT might apply.
You are a WP:SPA account working on an article where you're following in the footsteps of many editors with a clear WP:COI. You say you don't have a COI, but your behavior so far is indistinguishable from them.
In light of [1] and [2], you need to rethink what you're actually doing here. I strongly suggest you walk back what you wrote in that second diff.
The lifestyle section is back because the references are good. Removal of properly referenced content is a POV violation. We've been over this already, to the point where it looks like you're not reading what others have to say, nor understanding the relevant policies.
The other questions deal with WP:NOT and WP:POV issues. I'm just doing some initial, simple cleanup of all the COI editing that has gone on. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your response as failing the instructions at the top of this page.

If you're not going to walk back your statements here, please tread extremely lightly. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know you stand by your comments at RfPP. Given that, I suggest you find other articles to work on, avoiding all areas where editing limits apply. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting. I've responded. Until you can make far greater efforts to follow TALK and AGF, you're at very best wasting time. --Hipal (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I wasn't looking forward to a COIN report and the further drama that would likely result. I don't like what drama occurred, but at least it was relatively contained. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Mearsheimer bibliography dispute

[edit]

Notifying you I have requested a third opinion here. Ivan (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biased user

[edit]

Ratnahastin has an anti-BJP and pro-INC bias, and engage in edit war. Their edits are a mix of content removal (sourced), POV pushing, censoring, and misrepresentation of sources. Refer the edit history and talk page of Enforcement Directorate in early April this year, also check the edit warring in Katchatheevu from 31 March where the user tag-teamed with Rzvas for content removal without even providing a valid explanation. The problem in those articles still prevails.--106.206.219.12 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note.
I'd rather not expand my scope of editing at this time into more WP:CT/IPA until a few more broad enforcement actions take place. Be sure to document the problems will on the appropriate article talk pages and noticeboards to help with enforcement. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More soon

[edit]

I know we're mid discussion but I got Covid Monday :/ Ocaasi t | c 14:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon. I hope you can get access to an antiviral treatment if necessary. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok. Just sleeping for 3 days! Thanks for your thoughts. Ocaasi t | c 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we good (in your opinion) on the current version? I can live with it. Ocaasi t | c 21:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. I hope you've recovered.
It looks like good progress. Thank you for your help. --Hipal (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a mild case, and aside from sleeping 60 hours straight, no symptoms (thanks Advil + Tylenol!). No antiviral needed, and I'm back to my usual workload. As for the article, I think it's getting much closer to not being able to tell whether a proponent or opponent of FM wrote it, which is a good sign. This is the way of compromise. I appreciate your willingness to accept certain changes, albeit not ALL of them! :) Ocaasi t | c 22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted contributions?

[edit]

Interested in specific feedback as to why the recent contributions to Diamandis were reverted – as well as preferences for making meaningful contributions to the page. Chadnjgrant (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[3] PROMO - please work in smaller edits with clear edit summaries
I left some detailed feedback on your talk page as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Eric Jacobson article/talkpage message

[edit]

Hi Hipal,

Earlier today, you removed a section from Eric Jacobson -- to be clear, I agree with your edits and reasons. I did not write the section. However, I would like to address the talkpage message you left for me afterwards. While I can see that this was a copy/paste "welcome" that I'm sure you've left for others (likely in many cases that warranted it), I'd frankly just like to be clear: I am familiar with the policies you've linked and have done my best to adhere to them in my edits, despite being a "new" editor. I have recently boosted articles, such as Dave Goelz and Bill Prady, with copy-edits/clean-up, formatting, sources, and general expansion. I welcome you to compare their current versions and their states prior to my edits.

I believe the message was unwarranted in this scenario. Tvfunhouse (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, the talkpage message was right before the article edit - but I'm still assuming it was correlated, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hopefully you'll find that my contributions align with the policies you mentioned. Tvfunhouse (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you are familiar with the policies.
Therichest.com is a poor source, inappropriate for BLPs, and probably not reliable at all. [4]. --Hipal (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert

[edit]

Thanks for reverting this erroneous edit. Obviously 2022 is 8 years after 2014, not two years prior to 2014.
My bad. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying what happened. We all make mistakes. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sachs

[edit]

Hello. I come to your talk page because you have reverted my edit in Jeffrey Sachs arguing it is promotional.

I consider it important for readers of Sachs' biography to know which political ideas and parties he supports. I agree nevertheless that the reference I used as source is clearly partisan (the Green Party itself) so I propose to reintroduce the text with this reference, which is Sachs' piece endorsing Stein.

Looking forward to your reply Hispalois (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hispalois. Thank you for starting a discussion about this.
Briefly, it requires better sources that are clearly independent of the subjects for us to say it's important enough to include. See WP:NOTPROMO, WP:POV, WP:BLPPRIMARY, and WP:RECENTISM. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to those policies. In BLPPRIMARY, I see that it is ok to use Sachs' own statement: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (and I think my reference matches all points). The policy I do see as problematic is that my edit can be considered Recentism. To counter that, I propose expanding the sentence to all of Jeffrey Sachs's public endorsements: Bernie Sanders in 2016, Sanders again in 2020 and now Stein in 2024. What do you think? Hispalois (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. By including it without an independent source, we are promoting Sach's political viewpoints and his support of Stein. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct @Hispalois, it is acceptable, though many BLP patrollers prefer to interpret the last sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY as meaning you can only use it if you cannot find a detail in independent sources, and only if it is essential to the biography. You don't need to worry as much about that for normal biographies, but this one is more politicised. If you are unsure if an article is politically relevant in the present, look for clues like, in this case, "He has been criticized ..." in the lead or the presence of a multi-subsection "Critical reception" section.
So it is safer to cite this: <ref>{{cite news |date=2024-04-29 |first=Richard |last=Winger |author-link=Richard Winger |title=Jeffrey Sachs Endorses Jill Stein |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/29/jeffrey-sachs-endorses-jill-stein |newspaper=Ballot Access News}}</ref> instead. The more relevant policy is actually WP:BLPSELFPUB, where so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources, it merely has to fulfill the following criteria: (1) it is not unduly self-serving; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I have swapped sources and moved the statement to "Personal life". Ivan (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Hispalois (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Ivan, your commenting here is probably a bad idea, especially so soon after your being blocked.) --Hipal (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Ivan's solution. The ballot-access.org ref demonstrates no weight or encyclopedic value. It's not even an article, rather just a mention that Sachs made an endorsement. It doesn't even rise to the level of warmed over press release, which would also not be enough. If ballot-access.org doesn't give it more coverage, we certainly shouldn't.
My rule of thumb is to look for content in the references that demonstrates historical importance of the event/topic/etc for the subject of the article where it could be included. --Hipal (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you undid my edits to Jeffrey Sachs' bio.

[edit]

Could you please explain why, on Sept 4, you removed my edits on Jeffrey Sachs' bio page. I included links to and a few quotations from articles that Sachs wrote about the war in Ukraine. I figured that the section on the war in Ukraine should, at least, explain Sachs' views!

Thank you, Don ThinkerFeeler (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not responding to your comment on the aritcle talk page. Doing so now. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Skaggs Advert Code

[edit]

Can you explain what areas need work, revisions, removal, and so on that cause this issue? Or alternatively change these elements to aid in correcting the page. I have reviewed and edited it multiple times but am struggling to find the specifics that have not been pointed out for correction or clarification. Thank you for your help! Mr-asthmatic (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr-asthmatic. Thanks for starting a discussion about this.
I've not looked closely at all the references, but my impression at this time is that a total rewrite might be necessary.
I suggest you follow the recommendations I already made on your talk page.
If you insist on continuing to work on the article, I'd start by removing all the self-published sources and associated content. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promo?

[edit]

I am intrigued by the instant removal of study buddhism on Berzin's article - it basically removes any sense of what he has been doing in the last ten years or more is gone - do you ever consider re-writes? JarrahTree 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather baffled by your comment given your editing history. It's a BLP article, BLP content, sourced to a self-published reference. The solution is to either find a BLP-quality source that's independent of the subjects, or leave it out. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In turn I find many editors are ready to tag/remove, but never actually edit or improve articles. Fair enough, keep up the good work. JarrahTree 02:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it problematic to work from such assumptions, especially with well-established editors. --Hipal (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies then, I understand your BLP policy issue re self referencing without RS I even remember when the BLP issue almost took WP down , and have no problem with that. As to the rest, ... JarrahTree 02:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

[edit]

Please visit "Cradles of civilization" article and settle the "Indus/India" dispute Qaiser-i-Mashriq (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qaiser-i-Mashriq. I see that Hypnôs has already provided you with good advice on your talk page. I've left you some general information to supplement it.
Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the time to assist with the article directly. The topic is under special editing restrictions (WP:CT/IPA). Please take care with how you continue. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP Political Bias

[edit]

Hi, how are you?

I see that you undid my addition to the AP News article that AP News has a slight left of center bias. I read what you wrote as to why you removed my edit, but I did not understand it. Would you be able to explain further what was wrong about my edit? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I'll respond in the talk page discussion. --Hipal (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

[edit]

Hey you violated 1RR here. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you violated the sanctions that apply to the article.
I've subsequently modified the content. What do you suggest? Revert to the previous version and make a proposal? I'll do that. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Abrams Page

[edit]

Hi Hipal,

I hope this email finds you well. We noticed you flagged Dan Abrams' page for reading like an advertisement. I work with Dan, and we've been trying to improve the accuracy of the page; currently, the impression is that Dan is first and foremost a TV person when he is first and foremost a media company owner. We're happy to get rid of anything that might be promotional while still being able to update the content to reflect Dan's work. Do you have any suggestions for what we can do to make this happen? We'd love to be in touch with you so that we can make sure that we make changes that work in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you!

Best, Zoe 2020AM2009 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoe. Thank you for reaching out to me concerning Dan Abrams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Briefly:
You should take time to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Instructions are on User_talk:2020AM2009.
You should be making edit requests on the article talk page rather than directly editing the article per WP:COI.
Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical perspective (see WP:RECENTISM). It may be very difficult for you to find that perspective given your relationship with Abrams.
Generally, articles should be written from references that provide broad context for the subject matter. The Abrams article appears to have been written from press releases and similarly promotional sources that have little context beyond whatever is being announced. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity

[edit]

Hi Hipal. Just to let you know, many sources cite Carson Wentz as German from Russia. Horvat is about the most Croatian Name you can have. Scherzer seems pretty obviously German. I don’t like all these ethnicity rollbacks. Stating someone’s ethnicity is important Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. Especially with living persons, high-quality references are required. We should not be editing articles based upon guesses or assumptions. Sanctions apply to these articles, so we need to be cautious. I hope you understand. --Hipal (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not a guess. It is a fact. These rules are ridiculous. I personally believe players that do not state an ethnicity should be banned for life TBH Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bo Horvat is an obvious one Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find the rules to be ridiculous, then you should rethink why you're here. --Hipal (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should also let you know that I am autistic, so I sometimes find these things a bid hard Servite et contribuere (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look over Wikipedia:Questions to familiarize yourself with some of the venues available to ask questions and get help. --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done deal. I couldn’t find anything about Bo Horvat identifying as Croatian, or Carson Wetnz or Max Scherzer identifying as German. I'll be honest, it’s very possible that Bo Horvat, Carson Wentz and Max Scherzer only care about people knowing that they are Canadian, American and and American respectively. It’s just that I have some relatives that identifies strongly as Scottish, and might have mislead me to believe that people identify with their ethnicity. It actually might be quite rare. I think I have figured that many people in Australia, Canada and the United States identify as just Australians, Canadians and Americas. In New Zealand (Where they are from, not me though) it is more common for people to identify with their ancestral home. Sometimes we make mistakes. And we learn from our mistakes. And let’s not make assumptions, or at very least not publish those assumptions Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science of identity formation

[edit]

It's being repeatedly vandalised since Tulsi's nomination and it's controversial practices removed falsely in the name of NPOV. Please do something. 2409:40E1:30C4:5D3E:AB02:B801:576F:3947 (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me about this. Yes, we should expect attempts at whitewashing the article. Best to identify the problems with the references, on the article talk page. I'm trying to keep an eye on the article. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanking note

[edit]

I thank you that you removed false claims on the article Rajiv Dixit and wrote what is write, rather than the ideological form. Regards, Ved Sharma  Kharavela Deva (talk) 06:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was the direct outcome of the article talk page discussions, noticeboard discussions, and the recent RfC. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove this?

[edit]

On what basis did you remove this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Mearsheimer&diff=prev&oldid=1261433814 77.98.111.156 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look? The edit summary suggests it's redundant with another edit, very likely the addition of the same link as a reference. --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just a note to say

[edit]

thx for working through the issues with me Humanengr (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish we were making more progress, and that I had more time to dig through the current and potential refs. --Hipal (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greger deletions

[edit]

I reverted some of your deletions; see the talk page for discussion. Brianyoumans (talk) 03:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

[edit]

Hipal, I created a new Wikipedia article a week or two ago, a BLP. Today I was contacted by the spouse of the subject of the BLP (I do not know these people personally) asking that I delete the page, as the subject of the BLP wants to retain a low profile, due to safety concerns.

Of course I feel bad for having created problems for them.

Is there a way to have the article quietly deleted without having to go through a major, public process? In that these people want to avoid publicity, I do not want to draw any extra attention. Furthermore, I don't even know what reason I would provide to request article deletion, as I suspect the reason in this case is not one of the standard bases for such matters.

Clearly no one would miss that Wiki article were it removed, as no one missed it until I just put it up. Can you please help quietly delete the article? Perhaps you can just do it yourself? The article name is Celeste Mellet.

Thank you in advance, Matza Pizza (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Wikipedia:Oversight has tools to remove it without a trace. I suggest contacting them. I'm going to redirect it in the meantime. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is gone. Yay! But I have no idea how that happened! Do you know. I am curious. It would be good to know for future reference.
Thank you.
Matza Pizza (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have helped.
I redirected the article. The old content and editing history is still available here. Oversight would be required to remove it completely. --Hipal (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual for a new editor

[edit]

[5] Doug Weller talk 18:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I didn't look to see if there's any history of similar edits to the article. Maybe the editor or someone else will attempt to create some verifiable content related to that first attempt. --Hipal (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I didn't notice that 2022 edit. --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thank you

[edit]

Thank you for your post from September. I just now realized it was there and I apologize for not thanking you for the time you took to write to me earlier. Thank you for the links.

Daniel Themeparks (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thx

[edit]

thx 4 urr comment DBGamer (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing my Dan Abrams revision for promotion

[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for your contributions to Dan Abrams. You undid my revision because you saw there were still promotional sources remaining on there even after I checked. After looking through it myself I do not think there were any sources there that could necessarily be seen as definitely promotional in nature. Could you please explain what sources you saw there that you believed were promotional? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 21:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Small edit for grammar. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 14:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quickly glancing, #2, 3, 6, 8, and 9 of the first 10. --Hipal (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let your edit stand but I still disagree on that. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Late response

[edit]

I am sorry, HipalI just saw your comment here. I thought I had already edited the parts that were an issue? Do you want to re-clean up the article, or should I handle it? Seems like there exist more other sources. 현서 김 (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it be best by starting with a response to my question there. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll respond on the talk page in a few minutes. 현서 김 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Skaggs strikes again

[edit]

Plz take a look at complete rewrite . cf. Mr-asthmatic (talk · contribs). --Altenmann >talk 20:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Canadacanada1

[edit]

Hi, Hipal, I noticed you lefta COI warning at User talk:Canadacanada1 and I'm wondering what the suspected COI was. I believe they are currently pushing a pro-Conservative Party of Canada agenda at 2025 Canadian federal election. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see prior to my leaving the template, it looks like undeclared paid editing. Now that the editor is actually discussing matters, it's not clear.
Listing political endorsements is tricky. I don't recall RfCs or noticeboard discussions on the matter, but I'd be surprised if they don't exist. It would be worth searching.
As for the discussion: I'd probably argue for only including endorsements sourced by reliable, independent sources that discuss at some length as to why the endorsement is important. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had thoughts of posting at RS/N just to at least get more eyes on the discussion. I'll check it out, thanks. :] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 18:48, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Jonathan Swan's talk page

[edit]

Hello @Hipal, I noticed you reverted one of my edits on the talk page of Jonathan Swan without providing a reason, except for remarking that it was "bordering on vandalism." That's a big claim. I don't mind your decision, but an explanation would be nice. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up with me.
You were given a reason after the first time you removed it. Removing it again was extremely inappropriate.
Also, it makes me wonder if you have a WP:COI yourself. I expect anyone noticing your two edits there would have similar concerns. --Hipal (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before answering to your complaint, let me address your latest edit on the main article. (Redacted pre instructions at top --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
First of all, I was well aware that there was a reason behind my edit being reverted the first time, and I disagreed with it. Simple as that. I provided my own reason, and it was reverted again, by a different user who could not bother giving a reason. (Redacted --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
I will leave some of the changes you made on the talk page, but those on the main article have to go.(Redacted --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)) Thank you. DannyRogers800 (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) DannyRogers800, that's not how that issue should be settled. The bloated, advertisement-sounding, chatty version of Jonathan Swan which you have several times restored is not encyclopedic and not fit for Wikipedia. Its many compliments of the subject, like "myriad investigative scoops" and "one of the most outstanding interviews of Trump's first term", stated in Wikipedia's voice; are quite inappropriate: see WP:NPOV. "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. Note, attributed in text; footnotes are not enough. AFAICS, Hipal's revert to a neutral, concise, and encyclopedic version was proper. Please see also my contentious topic alert on your own page, and my conflict of interest notice. Bishonen | tålk 03:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Noted, I accept your criticism. The difference is that you bothered to provide a reason, and @Hipal did not. I have tried to maintain a NPOV by mentioning criticism of Swan whenever due (e.g., "Some commentators accused Swan of favoring "access over accountability," in light of his refusal to strongly challenge the White House's actions, and the lack of depth in his articles, with the one detailing the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital being just 55 words long." ... "All in all, Swan was accused of being a 'bootlicker.'"), and always mentioning "regarded as," "Commentators note," etc. I will admit that the sentence you cited is an exception, and I will fix it. Any other concerns with NPOV are very welcome (Redacted --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)) DannyRogers800 (talk) 03:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a couple of examples of compliments (literally from the first couple of lines!), out of many , and you offer to fix those particular examples? I'm afraid that's not adequate. Such a minimal "fix" would still leave your version unacceptably bloated, advertisement-sounding, and chatty. Bishonen | tålk 03:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
I have made some more changes, and there will be more to come. Just understand that any overtly positive and glorifying language are failings in my observation of NPOV, and not my being a paid editor. DannyRogers800 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've heavily redacted your comments per the instructions at the top of this page. I think Bishonen has addressed the main points here. If there's something that you'd like me to address still, let me know. --Hipal (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no need for further comment. DannyRogers800 (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Morley - Personal life

[edit]

Hi Hipal. While I could agree with you about the entire Philanthropy section I didn't wan't to remove it not to incite pointless arguments, I WILL return a miscarriage part because it's not TRIVIA, for god's sake! Anyone who followed the show knows about it.

Because of it Eliza couldn't direct episode 7 of S7, and Bob had a mental breakdown and asked for a break from filming. We know how it ended, right? With a total crash of the show. I restored Morley's Personal life AS it was, and please don't touch it anymore because you never had before. Thank you. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I was in the process of commenting on your own talk page.
I didn't remove the content on her miscarriage. Looking over the reference: I'm not finding any discussion about the publisher, telltaletv.com. The author is free-lance, which could indicate that the specific reference should not be used. My impression of the publisher from what information they provide about themselves is that it's of questionable quality in general, and especially for BLP information. I'm not going to remove it, but wouldn't argue of it to be restored if it was disputed.
Would it help to go over the references from the Philanthropy section? --Hipal (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text was not mine, but knowing telltaletv.com, they are deleting their texts if author is free-lancer. But since I followed Unity Days 2020 on Twitter and Instagram, I CAN confirm that what Eliza and Bob said on the panels and what was written on telltaletv.com is true.
As for Philanthropy section, I would only leave BC Children's Hospital Benefit soccer match in Vancouver, but we need some link with Bob if it's possible.
I'll look around a bit to see if there's still something out there. But I can't promise you it'll be today. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The soccer match was referenced to (Williams, Rob (7 September 2017). "Archie from Riverdale to play in charity soccer match at BC Place". Daily Hive. Archived from the original on 25 April 2018. Retrieved 25 April 2018.), and simply lists him as a participant. Such a brief mention wouldn't be due any mention. The reference is a local public announcement, which isn't due mention even if there were more about Morley in it. --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, except f*cking JustJared, still haven't found a site that directly mentions Bob or even has his picture on.
One more thing about Philanthropy: why does no one mention Koh Tao Kids and Little Hearts Learning?! Bob was working for both Koh Tao Kids and Little Hearts Learning. And if you go to Eliza's site, you will notice there is no Philanthropy at all? And she worked in KTP for four years, and then transferred to the LHL.
Well, when they got married some assholes (mostly clxa fans) started writing crap how Eliza and Bob stole the money from them even though it was proven as bullshit. Kizo2703 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, if you want to restart Philanthropy:
In September 2017 and 2018, Morley joined fellow The 100 castmates to participate in the BC Children's Hospital Benefit soccer matches in Vancouver, Canada.
[1]
[2]
[3]
I know BC Children’s Hospital had it on their site, but since it's been 8 years, they cleaned up their servers too.
Grounders Source is The 100 fan site. I don't have to like Evelyn Ulrich, but she never proved to be unreliable.
And right now, her site is the only one we have that directly mentions Bob Morley and British Columbia Children's Hospital charity soccer matches.
You have three links now. The first two are for 2017, and the third is for 2018. Decide for yourself.
As for the other notes and links about T-shirts, it wasn't mine and really don't know should it be in Wikipedia at all. After all, it was just a load of crap. Do as you wish with it. I just don't
want it to start another fan war. Kizo2703 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first is no different from the Daily Hive.
The second and third are from the same publisher, a blog that is not reliable.
You should familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very well aware of what they are and I'm familiarized with WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. Unfortunately, no one published anything about it on WP:LATIMES or WP:PEOPLEMAG. It's an obvious fan site and the only one left. As I said, do as you wish.
I'm sorry, but I'm at work and don't have more time for you right now. Kizo2703 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hoy, Chloe. "Whitecaps FC: Legends & stars charity alumni match". The Permanent Rain Press. Archived from the original on 11 September 2017.
  2. ^ Ulrich, Evelyn (21 September 2017). "Vancouver Whitecaps Legends And Stars Charity Match In Photos". Grounders Source. Archived from the original on 27 September 2020.
  3. ^ Ulrich, Evelyn (11 September 2018). "The 100 Stars To Play In Vancouver Whitecaps Legends And Stars Match". Grounders Source. Archived from the original on 24 October 2020.

5Pillars

[edit]

Islam21c is no longer a poor source; I have collected many references to create an article.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should have started a discussion on the article talk page. I'll do so. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at JeffSpaceman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for the clean-up of Caeryrodar's edits. I was halfway through their edits (moving misplaced "refs" to the external links section) before I noticed that every single one was to an article written by Ana Vidal and that Caeryrodar had written her article as well. I wavered on whether their efforts were spam or useful, and was still going back and forth on the question in my mind when I saw that you'd made a call. Despite my initial indecisiveness, I think you're right. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset Police

[edit]

Following your third opinion at Dorset Police the other editor has refused to engage on the talk page and has simply reinstated the disputed material with no explanation. Please can you advise me on where to go next? Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are behavioral issues that might need to be addressed, especially if there are more copyright problems in the disputed content. The edit warring over years and whatever the relationship with the AlikhanNalini (talk · contribs) account might be are troubling.
As far as the content dispute, I'd take it to WP:BLPN, though you might want to look through WP:DR to see if there's an alternative you prefer.
I have left a message with user Nthep, the last admin to address the copyright problems there. --Hipal (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will wait to see what Nthep does and then consider either of the two routes that you suggested. Many thanks for the speedy response. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so that was quick and easy. I'll take it to BLPN as you advised. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dorset_Police. I have mentioned you in the report as the one who gave the third opinion. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hipal reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: ). Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE

[edit]

Please remember to preserve appropriate content. Thank you. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are aware by now, I'm much more concerned with situations where we should apply WP:DON'T PRESERVE, Take special care with biographies of living people, especially when handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.
Note also WP:CHOICE, Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your response per the instructions at the top. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove that exchange in its entirety. Selbsportrait (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request the same. Thanks.Deamonpen (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is clear, as is DON'T_PRESERVE. Policy-based consensus is a requirement. If you think a case can be made for some content to be included, make it, and do so on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T PRESERVE only applies to unsupported and contentious material.
One can't say anything about consensus until one asks for it. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your reading of the quote above. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your response per the instructions at the top. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selbsportrait, I've removed multiple comments of yours now. Please take more care to follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:Ref expand

[edit]

Hello, Hipal. I was working on something else and came across a discussion you had with another editor regarding the Joey Chestnut article. It made me realize that you have added {{Ref expand}} to multiple articles rather than just the one. I was wondering if you would review your recent edits and try to adjust the Ref expand template from the top of articles you recently added it to, down to the references section. The reason I am asking this is because of the documentation for the template saying that it is usually best in the references section due to being a cleanup tag. (Additionally, I should mention that your edit notice seems to not be fully compatible with WP:REPLYTOOL as it leaves a blank space where the user's name should appear.) Thank you for your time, Super Goku V (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing these out.
Is the tag that big of a problem? I'm unlikely to have time to do it soon. My plan was to just try to remember to do it as I go forward with ones I come across and add.
I've no idea what to do regarding REPLYTOOL, and my editnotice precedes it. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems frowned upon, but it can be fixed as it is encountered. As for your editnotice, if there is a way to detect when a user is using the reply function, then it could be updated to remove the blank space that appears in the text. But, I am not sure if that is possible right now. For the moment, it will be a bit broken for users using the reply tool. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a quick attempt to move the templates I've added this year.
Maybe I can get help at the REPLYTOOL talk page. --Hipal (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha and thank you. Also, to be clear, the edit notice only appeared for me when created a new topic and was thus the only bugged version I saw. "Welcome, , to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Hipal." Hopefully someone there has some experience with making edit notices compatible. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PragerU in schools

[edit]

Do you not think it notably they are being used in 8 public school classrooms? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.
My concern was over the change in wording to the first sentence of the lede without explanation.
I'm not sure about the schools. Looking over the refs, I think it best to add the ref and more details from it to the article body, then introduce schools to the lede. I'll go ahead and restore the lede sentence. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright that makes sense.
Re the other change to the lede I could've clarified further. "Political, economic, and sociological topics" seems vague and unspecific so I said they covered topics including politics, economics, history, philosophy, and civics. 152.3.43.65 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the process, you de-emphasized what they're probably most notable for.--Hipal (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what do you mean SonsyEpicMap (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting conservatism, obviously. You replaced it by "from an American conservative perspective" and moved it to the end of the sentence as if it were just an afterthought. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harper

[edit]

Hi Hipal,

I saw you reverted stephen harper as a noted presenter on the PragerU page, while keeping people like Michelle Malkin, as notable presenters. Surely the prime minister of Canada of 12 years is more notable than a former Fox News presenter? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look for problems with the existing content.
This isn't about any general notability of anyone. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you revert my addition of Stephen Harper to the notable presenters section? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the reasons I gave. Is there something about my explanation that's unclear? --Hipal (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you said "seems UNDUE as ref'd". I'm not sure exactly what that means but what you did was revert the change of stephen harper in notable presenters so presumably you thought he wasn't a notable presenter and I don't know how the PM of canada is not a notable presenter SonsyEpicMap (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:UNDUE. Again, this has nothing to do with what you personally think is notable about a presenter. --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand how it's undue.
There's a section for notable presenters, I think it is pretty universally acknowledged, not by me but by the world, that Stephen Harper is more notable than some of the minor political commentators who are already acknowledged. So when you say it's undue, meaning a minority view, are you arguing that I'm the only one who thinks Stephen Harper is a notable presenter? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section for notable presenters... No there is not, at least not in the sense that you repeat.
I'm saying that a person's general notability is irrelevant and it's a POV violation to choose content based upon such criteria. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then please explain to me what are the criteria are for selecting these people: "Some prominent video presenters have included Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Nigel Farage, Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin, Bret Stephens and George Will." Would you prefer if I put on the talk page asking if Stephen Harper belongs among them? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the references being used and compare them to the Harper reference. The article should be written around what's important to the understanding of PragerU. See WP:NOT as well, which comes into play with the Harper reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow banning article

[edit]

Hi Hipal,

Thank you for patrolling my latest changes in the Shadow banning article and addressing the lack of sources.

I would say that the deletion without warning was a bit drastic. Yet, lack of sources is a clear Wikipedia policy violation.

I suspect that part of the reason why you took this action was because of my basic user profile (bit better by now) and my short editing history.

I have tried to improve the contribution I wrote. And I have published it again, with changes.

Like the first edition of my text, they are two new sections:

  1. Drawbacks: no changes, apart from adding 1 source reference and the {{In_use_section}} and {{Citation_needed}} templates.
  2. Legality: I have considerably extended the section and added 10 source references (papers, official gazettes, universities and law experts' groups).

I have found a few sources that directly address the Drawbacks section. But unlike the Legality section these sources are a bit more light-hearted:

The reason for the lower quality of these sources being that this information is mostly explanatory, relatively unimportant, and kind of obvious. Yet, it was missing in the article.

The trade-off of having the Drawbacks section with these sources outweighs the due correctness in sources and not having this information at all.

If you are happy with these sources I will add them to the section and remove citation templates.

Suggestions are welcome.

Cheers,

AxeEffectPoweredByChuckNorris (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you focus on content and policy. I removed it because of the lack of references, as I indicated. --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I did not ask for clarification, since the reason was obvious, and I accepted it.
I have asked you for your acceptability of the sources that I am proposing now.
I am asking you about this to get consensus and avoid having the section reverted again.
I understand then by your response that your are OK with the 2 sources I want to add? Please read my initial message where I explain these sources and why I asking now. AxeEffectPoweredByChuckNorris (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. It would be best to ask for review of the new references on the article talk page, but I'll try review them soon. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Geolocation

[edit]

Hi, I see you rolled back my edits on Internet geolocation. "appears to be more LLM content - poor and outright unreliable sources despite assertions otherwise in edit summaries".

As I mentioned inside the discussion page, and here and here, all the content is original and NOT AI/LLM created. I literally wrote it word by word, not once, but at least 3 times. I really don't know what else to do, it's 100% human content, I worked personally in this industry for more than 10 years. When it comes to sources, could you please point out which ones are poor/outright? Several sources are from universities, international research centers/entities, CNN, W3, Mozilla foundation, Apple, Google/Android, Oxford publication, Microsoft. Should I remove the others, coming from some kind of "commercial sites", even if they're reliable? Really, it hurts my eyes to see that page in the current situation, it's just incomplete and even wrong in some aspects. I'd love to help but it's been 3 weeks I've been trying to improve it and getting rolled back over and over. Please, let me know how could I fix the issues you mentioned and I'll make sure to work on the page again to improve it. --Dylan--86 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. It just looks far to close to what I've seen from LLMs, and the choice of references seems indiscriminate with respect to Wikipedia's content policies.
See WP:RS and WP:IS for some direction on the choice of references.
Refer to WP:RSP and WP:RSN if you're unsure about the reliability of a source.
I have not looked at the previous state of the article. I ran across your edits because of the use of thefamouspeople.com. After skimming the rest of your edits and others' concerns, I agreed that the problems had not been addressed.
Best to work slowly, following the suggestions on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I read and took notes, I'm slowly working on the article again, improving the sources! Thanks --Dylan--86 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Apologies that I don't have the time to respond quickly to your work. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the subsequent edits, a new approach is needed. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. Czarking0 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD! As you may have seen in my previous message, I am conducting a survey. Several editors have responded already and I do not want their hard work to go to waste. If you could take a few moments to make your voice hear please check this survey.
Don't worry I won't send you another reminder.Czarking0 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Hari

[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edits to the Vani Hari page, saying that the sources were unreliable. At least two of them were from secondary sources, related to her collaboration with Mark Hyman and others. And one of them linked to her quote about the flu vaccine. Can you clarify which sources you felt weren’t reliable, and what types of sources would be acceptable for this content? Farwest1 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One was a Forbes article, another a Vox Media article, and a third from Drovers Magazine, an agriculture publication. These seem to me to be legitimate secondary sources. Farwest1 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Vox ref is used elsewhere in the article, but alone I don't see any of the information is WP:DUE in the WP:LEDE.
The rest are poor if not unreliable WP:FORBESCON. The Drovers ref looks very poor, an opinion piece. --Hipal (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Ricardo Duchesne

[edit]

You have deleted a long-standing statement on the Wikipedia article concerning this sociologist in a way that leaves the paragraph devoid of content, and the only reasons given are totally disconnected with the removal. The sentence you have removed is a direct quote from the subject of the article, explaining his position and values. You have deleted it claiming that it is a soapbox statement, expressing point of view, and inappropriate to BLP. Yet it is a direct quote form the subject of the article, indicated as such, with no editorializing. It seems that you went through the article quickly, deleting it without noticing the reference or the source of the quote. Please take another look, and if you still want to prserve your deletion, give your reasons on the talk page - the reasons given when you did the edit seem largely irrelevant. Certainly including the subject's own description of his views cannot be inappropriate for BLP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Gollum (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ignoring your assumptions about what I may have done. Please WP:FOC.
I'll add to what I've already written that it fails WP:LEDE.
The WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion, especially so in a BLP article. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of our acronyms address the substance of the concerns. It would be helpful if you could address the substantive concerns that I have raised. Bob Gollum (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. If you're not going to respect the policies identified, I'm wasting my time responding. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an unfair and belligerent comment, and inappropriate to wikipedia, which operates on a consensus model. The point was that the policies were fully respected, and accordingly did not justify your deletion of substance from the article.
The policies are important and valuable, but they had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I won't repeat what I last wrote, but it's all that needs saying still. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Intead of #3, one could reference https://ladanza.com/duchesne.htm#english Serrano is a retired professor of Puerto Rican studies who has written extensively on Puerto Rico in general and Puerto Rican jazz in particular: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Basilio-Serrano, including several books on the subject of Puerto Rican jazz - Puerto Rican Pioneers in Jazz, 1900–1939: Bomba Beats to Latin Jazz; Juan Tizol - His Caravan Through American Life and Culture; Puerto Rican Women from the Jazz Age: Stories of Success.
The first two references, from Centro Journal and the Latin Jazz Network, both by Serrano confirm that the musician is the grandfather of the subject of the article. One can multiply references to the musician and his life, and I can certainly add more if you think that would be helpful. Being mentioned on wikipedia cannot be the requirement; otherwise wikipedia would never expand. -Bob Gollum Bob Gollum (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see you added something similar on the article talk page. I'll respond there so others can easily see and participate. --Hipal (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]