User talk:Hipal

Extended content
	- Nov 2006; Dec 2006; Jan 2007; Feb - 9 Apr 2007; Apr 2007; May 2007; Jun 2007; Jul - Aug 2007; Aug - Oct 2007; Oct - Dec 2007; Jan 2008 - Feb 2008; Feb 2008; Mar 2008 - Apr 2008; Apr 2008 - Jun 2008; Jun 2008; Jul 2008; Aug 2008; Sep 2008; Oct 2008; Nov-Dec 2008; Jan 2009; Feb 2009; Mar-Apr 2009; Apr-Jul 2009; Jul-Aug 2009; Sep 2009; Nov-Dec 2009; Dec 2009-Jan 2010; Feb-Mar 2010; Apr-May 2010; Jun-Jul 2010; Aug 2010; Sep 2010; Oct 2010; Nov-Dec 2010; Jan-Feb 2011; Mar-Dec 2011; 2012; Jan-Jun 2013; Jul-Dec 2013; Jan-Jun 2014; Jul-Dec 2014; 2015; Jan-Jun 2016; Jul-Sep 2016; Oct-Dec 2016; Jan-Jun 2017; Jul-Dec 2017; Jan-Jun 2018; Jul-Dec 2018; Jan-Dec 2019;

Welcome to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Hipal/Ronz.
To leave a message on this page, click here.

In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted.
I will respond to your comment, and try to do so promptly, on your talk page if not here.
I am usually open to holding myself to one revert if you think it will help a situation. Just let me know.
Sign your post using four tildes ( -- ~~~~ )

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

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

A Script You Might Find Useful

There's a handy script which will pop an article onto your watchlist with a note that I've taken to using and you might also find helpful (ala in the MT:MEDMOS discussion). It is User:SD0001/W-Ping.js. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been looking around to find tools to help with large watchlists. --Ronz (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for such a warm welcome! No specific asks at this point but thank you for reaching out and writing all of that out. Fonz1951 (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritynetworth.com as a source

Thank you for letting me know. I did not know that. Johnnyboytoy (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abbymsmall

Thanks for blocking this user, who just didn't seem helpful. Fonz1951 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The blocks were done by someone else. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marking Drug Costs/Prices Disputed

Hi there. As I think you are now definitely aware, until the RfC - which seems to have made some real strides towards being ready in the last day - has been completed there is a moratorium per this ANI discussion on removing or adding this information. Adding disputed tags falls in a bit of a grey area but does, to my reading, fall against the spirit of that prohibition, namely that energy should be focused on find a solution to move forward rather than continuing to edit war over this content. I would ask that you allow the status quo, whatever form that may take, to stay until the community has weighed in. Please ping me or leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss or have questions. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So disputed content shouldn't be tagged, to maybe get some others involved? --Ronz (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just came back here and so am seeing this question for the first time. Marking disputed content as disputed has the effect of not remitting "question[s] of drug pricing.. to a single venue". Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? My concern was the way Seraphimblade stumbled into the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concern how? As I noted in my ANI close the idea of new editors stumbling into the dispute unaware (or having read something somewhere but not knowing the specifics) seemed likely to happen. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~If you think it's fine, then ok.~~ I see there's another example of the situation, with what could be considered a breech of the embargo by Doc James... --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it's not "fine" in the sense that they should be told what's going on but fine in the sense that it seemed likely to happen and require little more than a friendly FYI. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it's definitely not fine. Doc James has pushed against the ANI result, and it's been invalidated. --Ronz (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would put the RfC together …

but I don't know what these 'better sources' are that you are referring to. They should be presented for assessment or the issue dropped. Humanengr (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've pointed them out multiple times. I agree it would be better if you dropped it. --Ronz (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronz/Doubtful sources

Nice list. We have been doing some other work about dubious reference material and its coordinated use at WP, some discussion about how we can work with this at User talk:Praxidicae/fakenews, and noting that I can do some of that configuration for COIBot reports. Let me ping @Vexations, Praxidicae, and ThatMontrealIP: to your build. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been meaning to link any RSN discussion for each entry, but the list grew too fast. It's mostly scraping or publicity sites. --Ronz (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comments out of an RfC

Don't accuse me of moving comments out of an RfC, as you did here. It is clear that all I did was to move a section in its own right into the discussion about the RfC, and add it as a sub section, here. It was never in the RfC for me to move it out. - SchroCat (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sorry, but I didn't even notice that you were the one that moved the section out of the RfC.~~ Moving comments like that are inappropriate. I added it to the RfC. --Ronz (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever actually read what people say to you? I did not move anything out of the RfC. You added a new section, not a sub-section. I moved the section to above the RfC to allow the RfC to be the clear item at the bottom. If you meant to add what you typed as a comment within the RfC, then next time don't add it as a new section, then double down on accusations against others who have followed accepted practice. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have no idea what you're complaining about. The first diff you provided has nothing to do with you as far as I can see. Nothing you've shown demonstrates any accusation by me about you. --Ronz (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment removed per TALK, NOT --Ronz (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

How is the first diff about you? How is the second? --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's still some confusion: My comment was moved out of the RfC. That's what my edit summary referred to. You subsequently moved it to a better location. I moved it back to the RfC. None of this was about you at all. --Ronz (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Edits - mostly foxchronicle.com

Ronz

Thank you for your help. I see that you are a very experienced editor so I am thankful for feedback and I know you are also acting in good faith. The source is reliable and you seemed to have deleted several of my edits without thorough review. The edits are supported in other reliable sources as well on Wikipedia. For example, a similar statement was made on Billy Corben's page, the director of the documentary, Cocaine Cowboys:

"After a limited theatrical release in 2006, Cocaine Cowboys became the highest-rated documentary ever on the Showtime cable network.[4]"

This has already been on Wikipedia and is supported by the studio Magnolia Pictures and it is supported by the producer and network - how can we get more reliable than that?

You may not be familiar with the source and I did many helpful and good faith edits quickly. You seem to have judged too quickly because you believe I am a new editor. The source is very reliable and is quoted for writing political, religious, and educational news as opposed to entertainment news.

I would appreciate if you would revert these changes. I can demonstrate the same information for the multiple deletions and I hope that is not necessary.

SaltySnow (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)SaltySnow[reply]

Hi SaltySnow. Thanks for following up with me. I did go over your edits quickly, and saw that another editor had already notified you about the use of unreliable sources, specifically Wikitia.com, which you added again after being notified. Other edits of yours were removed by other editors for similar reasons. Seeing that, I looked closer at your remaining edits, and removed much of them. I'm uncertain about foxchronicle.com, but I don't believe it was used anywhere until you added it.

You can use WP:RSP and WP:RSN to help find better sources. --Ronz (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. That was my error. I simply was not aware that other wiki pages were not reliable and I didn’t notice the edit. I appreciate your guidance and I will make sure it doesn’t happen again. I guess that’s the only way to learn.

SaltySnow (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like to get other editors to look at foxchronicle.com, as I left it in a few places. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#foxchronicle.com --Ronz (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the VanderWaal RfC and related ANI discussion

Question: Why do you think ANI is the best place to sort out a content dispute? Cassianto^Talk 19:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto:. Thanks for looking into it. To answer your question: I don't. Sorry that I gave the impression otherwise. Could you point out what made you think I did, so I can refactor and clarify? --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why have you posted your dispute with SchroCat there? Cassianto^Talk 19:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, is there something that needs clarification? --Ronz (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again, why do you think ANI is the best place to sort out your dispute with SchroCat? Cassianto^Talk 20:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my first and last sentences make that crystal clear:

Disrupting an RfC

I'd like dig through the potential refs offered by Isaidnoway and SchroCat without the constant harassment

Is there something that needs clarification? --Ronz (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Refactor per WP:TALK --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]

So you thanked me for the refactoring. Are we done then? --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored again.

Thanks you for the civil response. Repeating yourself while ignoring what I've written gets us nowhere.

I've answered your question. I've asked if anything needs clarification. That should be enough. --Ronz (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Chronicle

I did some digging and I found this - I think its credible but you are definitely more advanced than me.

About Fox Chronicle Fox Chronicle delivers award-winning original reporting and sharp opinion in the area of politics, pop-culture and humor. The Fox Chronicle is based in Luxembourg and was originally funded by RTL Communications and Switchover Media of Italy, under the Fox Kids Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltySnow (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd you find this? Please bring it up at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#foxchronicle.com, along with whatever information you have about it, including who that information is from. --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delayed response. I am back. It was a link on the bottom of the privacy policy page.

https://foxchronicle.com/privacy-policy/ https://foxchronicle.com/about-fox-chronicle

I am not familiar with the companies listed on the About page. I wasn't able to really find anything on Fox Kids Italy but I was able to find something on Switchover Media.

comment added by SaltySnow —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flipp Dinero Article

Greeting Hipal, I noticed your reply to my article editing on the hip-hop artist, Flipp Dinero. I am contacting you in response to this. I would like to inform you that, yes, I am a newcomer and I am enrolled in a COM 482 course at my Univeristy in Seattle Washington. This course has an assignment called, "Project #1" in which we're to edit Wikipedia Stub articles for hopes of improving them. As I worked very hard to draft this edit, but also I am still trying to understand all the spects of Wikipedia as it is not easy to grasp all at once first hand, so I appreciate you pointing out things I should be aware of. Based on your feedback, I am understanding that I should remove my references of iTunes, YouTube, Sound Cloud. At first I thought this was okay since I looked at many other articles of artists and most seemed to include these types of references as well. Anywho, let me know if there's any other explainations you could provide me with on what is there I should adjust. Thank you. Blasianmanda (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal??

What the t¿≠}{\¶‰¢¥”, Ronz? Bishonen | talk 11:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

"Hip Al"? "Hi pal"?

Does someone have a script to auto-rename renamed accounts so they look like the old account - all this account renaming is too confusing :-) ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Bish, fwiw. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 14:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yes. I put this off way too long. I'm sure there's much more fun and confusion to come. X^P --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reiki dispute resolution

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding NIH definition. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Needs Work".The discussion is about the topic Reiki. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Pamxz (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Dubois

The sources may differ on year of her birth but if she had a child (Raj) who died in 1987 at age 36, it means Raj born around 1951. So most likely 1932 is correct year, because the odds of her giving birth at 19 is more realistic than at 13 or 6. Also Raj must not have been the youngest of 4 kids (as listed) unless Janet had 4 kids by the age of 19. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:6A48:9700:1828:C6F4:CEE7:CB63 (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The place for this discussion is the article talk page, where you will see the same argument and the response that as far as we know he could have been adopted. But, yes, primary sources which we should not be using alone, suggest 1932. Too bad the New York Times punted on her year of birth. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark salling edit

I don't see why you reversed my edit on mark salling, he's not a living person so it didn't violate the blp guidelines and it was a true fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuclamgo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While BLP doesn't apply, WP:NOT, WP:POV, and WP:OR certainly do. If you want to continue to dispute the removal, the place to do so is on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleting a Wikipedia page

Hi Hipal/Ronz,

Thanks for the welcome message from where I got link to this talk page.

New to wikipedia and have done only 2-3 pages. Got a page deleted entitled "Shweta Shalini" for being promotional about Biographies of Living Persons.

Can you help to retain it back so that I can rectify my mistakes ? Or guide me to who deleted it so that I can request for the same

Praveen u menon (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praveen u menon, already explained to you at [1] DBig Xrayᗙ 21:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, New Jersey

That certainly went from 0 to 100 quickly! Please see User talk:Johnuniq#Advice on RfC proposal for more details on what motivated my initial deletion of the promotional content at Edison, New Jersey. If you'd like to collaborate on crafting an RfC I'd appreciate it. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm interested. I think this is a small incident of a very large problem.

WP:NOT is not well enforced or well understood when it comes to determining when information is appropriate for inclusion in articles. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices for an RfC that's mostly just about applying NOT.

I'd check WP:CITY, WP:PRIZE, and related projects to see what consensus has been reached on similar issues, and review GA articles for relevant content or discussion.

Yes, awards promote both the award givers and receivers, and often contribute little or nothing to the encyclopedic understanding of either. I've seen consensus, mostly in BLPs, that editors need to be very careful in selection of what awards to mention at all.

I don't believe NOT goes far enough to emphasize the need for independent sourcing, and sources that provide detail beyond the trivial. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 23:03, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a look at the RfC and other documents and put something together. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greger

I don't understand why you are removing what I've added on Dr. Michael Greger's page. I have been following his work for years and his nutrition research has saved family member's lives. I noticed that his Wikipedia page was missing a lot of information - I was under the impression that people could update the page. I have not added any false information and everything I added is cited. I spent several hours working on this and finding all the proper sources, why remove it all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamBellaRosa (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained on your talk page: User_talk:IamBellaRosa. I can give further details if you'd like.

I suggest putting aside working on this article, and learn your way around Wikipedia first. Wikipedia:Tutorial and Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure are good ways to start. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Gross

Andy Gross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am confused why you decided to revert my edit of this article to a misquoted and incomplete older edit. The page, as it currently stands, is not only far less informative of the events that transpired and made national media headlines, but is also blatantly false, a fact you would have been able to determine by actually reviewing the sources I added. Everything on the page was properly cited and factual, again qualities that are not shared by your edits. I wish to settle this dispute in as civil of a manner as possible, which is why I am writing to you rather than simply reverting your edits.Nucleartaco123 (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nucleartaco123. Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for following up with me on this.

To me it seemed like far too much coverage and detail for a single event that has apparently no lasting impact.

That said, it certainly could be written better, and the references formatted. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Momina Mustehsan

Hello, I have re-written/corrected the statement in the article you mentioned on my talk page. Regards.-Kthxbay (talk) 06:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

proposed changes on Heterodox_Academy

Hi, As you requested I proposed a change on that page. Please let me know if you need any more information.

I already have. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you so much Hipal and Ronz for the warm welcome. You are appreciated! Roccie (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)roccie[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I will do what I can to follow your great example on Wikipedia. Roccie (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Medical pricing and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with this. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ja`net Dubois/birth info

Actually I do have a source of referenced info but I failed to include it in the edit at the time.

Ms.Ja`net Dubois`s official death certificate was made public and confirms her date of birth to be 08-05-1932. With this confirmed information, Ms. Dubois`s date of birth should no longer be an issue for confusion.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willona1938 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. You're referring to the one from TMZ ( https://dam.tmz.com/document/c5/o/2020/03/11/c524058645cd44c19325454b899ffb73.pdf ), right? We've discussed it at great length at Talk:Ja'Net DuBois. It doesn't look reliable for much, and there's a good possibility it's a hoax. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhad Bhabie

Why do you keep removing my edits on the Bhad Bhabie page? Everything that I put on there is truthful and 8 even added references to please you, yet you still take it all down. If you so want to, you can find her single Get Like Me on every streaming platform, it’s even on her discography list so don’t take it from her career. You can download her game “Ride or Die” on google play or the App Store now, and you can find her freestyle “Yikes” and her song “$” on her YouTube page. It is all there with truthful references, why do you keep taking it down? It is important information as someone might want to know her recent singles, and with the facts on the page right now they would think that it is “Spaz" when it is really "$". They might want to know about her hiatus and if it has ended or not, with the current information on the page there isn’t even ANY mention of a hiatus except for the title “2019: Bringing Up Bhabie and hiatus". Key word - hiatus. If here was a mention of hiatus which was my edit that you deleted, they would know that she wore box braids on an Instagram live that got her backlash for cultural appropriation and she took a mental health break, but she later returned with the “Yikes” freestyle. You might want to know if she has a game out or not, by the current information there is no mention of a game, but really she has one out now. Please stop changing my edits as they are very helpful. BhadBhabie123 (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BhadBhabie123. Thanks for following up with me. Did you see the welcome I left on your talk page, because there's a partial answer there already, Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages. and If you work from reliable, independent sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP and WP:RSN are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.

Basically, the sources you used are not of the quality required, nor close. Please remove the material or find independent, reliable sources. If you need help, let me know or use some of the means of assistance that I also left on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Regan

Trish Regan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ms. Regan did not say cv-19 was a Democratic hoax; she said the Democratic response to the virus was an attempt to impeach the president. The header was updated to reflect this. (refactored - this sentence was originally the title of this section --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure why you changed my entry. The change I made was not a "change in emphasis"; it was a change in fact. The original stated that Ms. Regan was calling the pandemic a hoax perpetuated by the Democrats. However that is not the case. She was stating that the Democratic response was a hoax, not that the pandemic was a hoax. These are entirely different, and not simply a change in emphasis.

The reference was included because it had a transcript of her remarks; it was done in order to verify that the original (and now current) write up is incorrect. I agree it is a progressive rag, but that is the point; if it were a conservative site, one might dismiss it. And, of course, the header states that references are needed.

I would be interested in your take on this.

Thanks,

Hi DesertStormVet. Please work to get consensus on the article talk page.

Please note nowhere in the article is "hoax" even mentioned.

The use of the word "dismissing" vs "labeling" does seem problematic. I'm going to review the high-quality sources.

Thanks for bringing this up. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Dismissing" seems fine given the NYTimes ref, and the change in emphasis seems contrary to that ref. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Dinar, Modern Gold Dinar

The article referenced is of direct relevance to the these pages... please kindly reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuqud (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

"Direct relevance" isn't what we're looking for, especially when it looks like promotion of one, non-notable individual's perspective. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interview request

Hi, I am a freelance journalist who has written regularly about Wikipedia for The New York Times, Slate, and other publications. If you're interested, you can read some of my work here: https://slate.com/tag/source-notes

I saw that you weighed in on the issue of whether the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory should be classified as "pseudoscience" on its Wikipedia article which is an issue that I find interesting and am researching for an article for Slate.

Would you be open if I interviewed you by email or Skype about whether MBTI should be described as "pseudosience" on Wikipedia? The interview could be anonymous or under your name, whichever you prefer. You can contact me via the "Email this user" functionality. Thanks for considering. Stephenbharrison (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hello! After you commented on my talk page, I realized that I actually have a question you could probably help out with. My Talk page over the years has, understandably, gotten very crowded and I have sometimes made the decision to clear notifications. I would prefer to archive in the future, rather than clear. I have spent years on Wikipedia, but have never learned this skill... Could really use your help! PickleG13 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen other editors using, there are very good tools to automate it. Unfortunately, I've never gotten around to investigating. WP:AATP covers the topic. I'd be interested to know what you find. Good luck. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Gibson (political activist)

Please do not remove sourced information from this article without a consensus on the talk page to do so. Also, please review WP:TWITTER and note that citing "BLP" is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card which excludes your edits from being reverted if they are inappropriate, as they are in this case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no. BLP requires it be removed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Olson

Josh Olson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"Best I not make edit to the Josh Olson Article"? Excuse me what did I do in error? Maravelous (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a suggestion. I was easily able to find multiple references for the content. Your other edits to the article, your edit-warring, and your talk page comments all indicate that a break from the article would be a very good step. Alternatively, you might want to try working only from the article talk page with edit requests. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no edit warring, and I note you have not cited any violation on my part Maravelous (talk) 00:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're incorrect. I hope it will stop, so no further action will be needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be incorrect? Name one thing I have done that has not been cited correctly? Maravelous (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been edit-warring. Claiming otherwise is incorrect.

Please drop it. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming new editors

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For taking a moment to welcome new editors: Thanks! ProClasher97 (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hermes Press

Hi- I got the notice for the page about it being written from a fans POV and have been working to edit out extraneous information and make it better; do you think I've changed it enough or should I work further? Any suggestions? Thank you!

LeelooMultipass (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)LeelooMultipass[reply]

Thanks for your work. I was concerned the most of the sources were press releases and the like. As with any subject, the article needs high-quality references written from a historical viewpoint. It may be some time before I will be able to look carefully over the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look for more non-press-release references and start to sub them in as well; thank you! LeelooMultipass (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prager Edits

Hi Hipal,

Sorry, I'm a newbie to this, so I don't know if this is the right way to reach you.

Anyway, you reverted my edits to Dennis Prager's page. However, I think they are necessary for context. I personally am center-left, so I do not support him at all. Nonetheless, I feel strongly about ensuring that everyone's views are fairly represented. --Mcaser131 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

Please look over the welcome message I left you.

This is an encyclopedia we're writing. We rely upon reliable, independent sources to determine what viewpoints have clear encyclopedic value worth noting. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MBR

Hello Hipal, I am trying to modify the article about membrane bioreactors for an university project; may I know why have you removed my modifications? Thanks a lot, regards, Giancarlo Esposito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarloesposito (talk • contribs) 10:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talk page, where I already placed much of the information you need. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Membrane BioReactor

Hello Hipal, I am from the university of Tarragona (Universitat Roviri i Virgili), attending a Master's degree in Chemical Engineering; the aim of the project for the course of Membrane Separation is to improve the wikipedia page of Membrane Bioreactor. Me and my team selected also references from marketsandmarkets, gminsight and the aim of the section was not only about the future perspective, but also on the past/present (based on data which can be consulted from the references put into the wikipedia section). The proposal is to improve the market frameworks, since we have seen the sentence about previsions in 2010, we thought that the aim of the section could have been the future forecast, but now is clear that we need to focus on past events and give an historical perspective. Our idea is to create a section based on past and present information, describing the market of MBR that we thing it could fit very well in wikipedia. Thanks a lot, we hope for your answer as soon as possible because we have a deadline very soon. Best regards, we appreciate your comment Giancarlo Esposito. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giancarloesposito (talk • contribs) 09:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approve and Publish Sandbox Page

Hi Ronz, Can you take a look at my sandbox file for approval and publishing? Thank you - Roccie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roccie (talk • contribs) 23:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at User_talk:Roccie/sandbox --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated!

I understand that those admin privileges are few and far between. I appreciate your feedback and will do what I can to make adjustments. Yes, I will need help to publish. Take Care and Be safe/healthy. Roccie (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Roccie[reply]

No admin privileges are needed. I'm just not familiar with that type of work, while there are many editors who specialize in working with drafts and new articles. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Message

Hi Hipal, Thank you very much for the welcome message. I am still learning the ropes here. I do appreciate your kind help. I will go through the links you sent me and learn to feel my way around the site. I am trying my hands at lots here but I certainly do need to be guided! I did a draft article yesterday and sent in for review. I hope to learn from the corrections I will receive as sometimes learning comes from doing. Please keep me in your view and correct when I go wrong. Thank you! 07:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanLibrarian (talk • contribs)

Welcome Message

Hi Hipal, Thank you very much for the welcome message. I am still learning the ropes here. I do appreciate your kind help. I will go through the links you sent me and learn to feel my way around the site. I am trying my hands at lots here but I certainly do need to be guided! I did a draft article yesterday and sent in for review. I hope to learn from the corrections I will receive as sometimes learning comes from doing. Please keep me in your view and correct when I go wrong. Thank you! 07:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfricanLibrarian (talk • contribs)

Unreliable source indirectly funded by Big Tobacco

Philip Morris International created and financed the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.^[1]

References

^ Daube, Mike; Moodie, Rob; McKee, Martin (2017). "Towards a smoke-free world? Philip Morris International's new Foundation is not credible". The Lancet. 390 (10104): 1722–1724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32561-8. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 29047432.

It is "funded through a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World."[2] Knowledge-Action-Change has ties to the tobacco industry.[3] QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion for source. See Talk:Philip Morris International#New source for Research section. QuackGuru (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, I'm not seeing the full connection between the organizations. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The gsthr.org organisation is ran by the Knowledge-Action-Change and receives money indirectly from Philip Morris International through the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World. See "The report is published by Knowledge-Action-Change, a company dedicated to the promotion of harm reduction to improve health, and funded through a grant from the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World."[4] The Foundation for a Smoke-Free World was started and funded by Philip Morris International.[5] QuackGuru (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yikes. Can you summarize this on the article talk? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Any uninvolved administrator may apply sanctions as an arbitration enforcement action to users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
CFCF is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and similar conduct in the future.
Doc James is prohibited from making any edits relating to pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing in the article namespace.
QuackGuru is indefinitely topic-banned from articles relating to medicine, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine closed

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I am formally notifying anyone who was originally named as a party in the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...A lengthy welcome

Hi Hipal

Thanks for your message, I appreciate your advice. p.s. Is't ok to reply here?

Regards, Panda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda0271 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Pena

Hi, I am working on the Dan Pena page as I wanted to research his background after I saw him on the Joe Rogan podcast. Any help you can offer would be appreciated.Tom (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to Dan Pena or any of his companies or services.Tom (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tread with care and use descriptive edit summaries. An editor with a declared COI was recently blocked. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Sorry, I was not familiar with editing controversial pages before! Tom (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

Hi Hipal,

Thank you for the helpful information that you put on my talk page. So far my only mistakes seem to be finding references that are not approved by experts, but I'm sure as I get bolder there will be more mistakes which I apologize for in advance. Carlislejp51 (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Circular Source

About the Hugh O'Brian lineage. The last source I used was the Ethnicity of Celebs page, https://ethnicelebs.com/hugh-obrian, and you took it out and said in might be a circular source. I assume that you mean they may have gotten their information from Wikipedia, but I looked at the bottom of the article and the sources they give are:

Sources: Hugh’s father on the 1910 U.S. Census – https://familysearch.org Hugh’s mother on the 1900 U.S. Census – https://familysearch.org

Family Search is maintained by the Ladder-Day Saints, so please let me know if you think they are a good source. I can tell you from my own experience that many genealogists use their database.

Carlislejp51 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlislejp51 familysearch, like ancestry is not allowed because it constitutes original research. That being said, ethniccelebs still should not be used as it's definitely not reliable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an easy way to find out when that line was added? I can tell you that it was added between January 18, 2016 and September 5, 2016. There is an obituary in The Guardian giving his parents ethnicity, but it was written on September 12, 2016. So it could be circular, too. Carlislejp51 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear what "line" you're referring to.

Obituaries can be problematic, as they may not be fact-checked, depending upon the authorship.

The article needs some careful review, especially: the mention of three individuals claiming to be his children, his being a humanitarian, and the information about the Foundation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I should have been more clear. The line I’m talking about is:

"His paternal grandparents were immigrants from Germany; his mother was of half German and English/Scottish ancestry.[citation needed]"

The obituary is from The Guardian written by Anthony Hayward on September 12th 2016 not long after his death. It can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/sep/11/hugh-o-brian-obituary

I believe the line must be true, because I've seen it in so many places, but so far I cannot find a good reference. Please let me know what you think of the Guardian article. In the meantime, I'll keep looking. Carlislejp51 (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I've copied this to the article talk page. Let's continue there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazmin Chaudhry

According to Wikipedia:RS/QUOTE using Roger T. Pipe's website to cite his own quotes are acceptable. I am reinstating the removal. But, of course, that action is totally open to discussion. I could always be wrong.

As for fan POV, I believe the writing editing process is still on. Getting useful sources on any pornstar is difficult. So I would request some patience. It would also be great if you could provide some guidance. Especially since pronstars are sensitive subjects. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how Pipe's viewpoint is due any weight, nor encyclopedic in any manner. Only an independent source would resolve either. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. But, I thought WP:UNDUE is not about WP:RS. Rather according to the quotation policy, WP:SPS is perfectly acceptable as clear quotes. On the other hand, critical commentary is common WP:SECONDARY for any art or entertainment article, which makes Pipe's commentary perfectly admissible.

In short critical commentary directly quoted from an SPS should not be a problem unless it is presented as facts. You would notice that everything he said was included as WP:RSOPINION and not facts. Besides, the commentary is neither contentious nor libellous in the slightest way to be considered unadmissible. Can you help me to see where my understanding is wrong?

As for weightage, one line of commentary for a couple of films doesn't seem like too overdue. Can you help me to see how there's been too much weight there?

Also, is it possible to drop a line or two on what other edits are needed? This is the only pornstar article I am working on, and therefore, help and guidance wil be highly appreciable.

Finally, I may not be coming through right. But, believe me, I really am trying to keep the article as compliant as I can. Though I know, it would never be a very high quality article due to a lack of reputed sources in the porn industry. But that should not hold me back from trying. I hope asking for guidance is not too much to ask for. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To start, BLP requires high quality sources. If we can't pass that restriction, we're wasting time.

I asked on the article talk page and at the WikiProject discussion for editors to identify good articles to serve as guidance. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still a fan boy article? Rewrote a lot and still working on it. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. No new refs, and no substantial changes. Did you try to find a GA article to model it on? Try to find some better refs? Please respond on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your message on my Talk page

Hi Hipal Thank you for your message on my Talk page about biographical information for living persons and reliable sources. I've recently added citations to a living person's page because an editor requested citations. One of my sources which you have undone is NME - New Musical Express - which is a well known music journalism publication in the UK, and has existed since 1952 in print and now online - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NME So I'm uncertain why this isn't a good enough as a reliable, independent source for citations and welcome your advice on this. Many thanks for your help. --IndigoBeach (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It looks like you found some better sources, but I'll go over it all and restore any NME refs that provide additional details. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks Hipal --IndigoBeach (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still going over it all. I'm getting the impression that the article is overly detailed, relying too much on poor and promotional sources. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GeneralNotability (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving WP:AP2 notices to everyone involved in the dispute at Karlie Kloss and have imposed sanctions on the page under the same, I didn't see any past notifications for AP2 on your talk page but I apologize if you have been notified in the past year. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, Blackfemale777 has certainly shown interest in Karlie Kloss, here, though without editing it. I've given them a BLP DS alert. Bishonen | tålk 12:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

ANI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#POV_user_persistently_adding_unreliable_sources

I reported an user who was warned by you previously. The same POV and unreliable sources issue. 217.131.85.124 (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying the edit where text was first introduced

Hi, I'm a newish editor, and in a comment you'd left on the WP:V talk page re: whether Footnote 9 still has consensus ([6]), you identified the edit where someone had first added that text to the WP:V page years ago. If there's an explanation somewhere of how to identify the edit where text was first introduced, would you direct me to it? Or, if it's something that you figured out on your own, would you mind sharing how to do this? Thanks! -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FactOrOpinion. Good question. I used WikiBlame. It's a tool for editors listed on WP:TOOLS. I find it an essential tool that I use every day. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I appreciate the info about both that specific tool and the WP:TOOLS page, which I wasn't familiar with. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I finally tried using the WikiBlame tool, but couldn't figure out how to do what I was hoping -- to identify the relevant editors and diffs in some edit warring. I posted a question to the Teahouse, but haven't gotten any responses yet, so figured I'd drop a note here in case you're willing to answer there: [7]. Thanks again -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's for finding the first addition of information, as far as I'm aware. I think it can be used to find the first removal of information, but I'm not sure. Using the date ranges might help you, but I've never tried. There used to be tools to identify edit-warring diffs, and I don't know what became of them. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

undo

i'm sorry but can you please bring back my edits on Gabi DeMartino? i spent hours on making the articles, if the problem was in the references then i'll add new links that are not youtube links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 18:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly recommend you work on the draft version that you've already created.

Please work slowly, in small edits with clear edit summaries. Start from high-quality, independent reliable sources as references.

Working from a draft will make it easier for you to get feedback while avoiding the problems of working on an actual article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

but i've been working on a Draft:Gabi DeMartino for months, i don't know why was it wrong? but thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 19:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

hello, how can i add a cover art to an album article without getting copyrighted and blocked? :| please explain to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriella Grande (talk • contribs) 10:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I'd look through WP:IMAGES for specific information on the topic, then Wikipedia:Questions to find a venue to ask for help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

no conflict of interest

Dear Hipal,

Hello, I am kindly asking you to reconsider rejecting my edits due to possible conflict of interest; there is no such thing. I am a researcher in the field of market research, and I am integrating valid peer-reviewed published knowledge into the appropriate fields for scientific dissemination. I do not promote any organization, but instead, I am summarizing real, valid and up-to-date factual research findings. If valid researchers cannot update their relevant fields of expertise, then who can do that?

Thank you for taking the time.

You can find the relevant research pieces in the links below (please see the links to the published research). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593120920330

Responding on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who wrote that?

Hipal and stalkers, I think I'll add this here at the bottom, rather than in the thread above where I noticed you talking about WikiBlame,[8] in the hope that more people will notice it here. WikiBlame has become kind of old school. There's a much smoother new tool on Mediawiki called "Who wrote that?". You need to use Chrome or Firefox for it, though. See [9]. Bishonen | tålk 19:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Cool template

Hi Hipal, today I learned about {{birth based on age as of date}}. That's a cool template, thanks for using and sharing it. Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Vanderwaal

I noticed that someone (Koavf) deleted all of the Awards and Nominations section on July 3, 2020. I did not see (or find) a reason for that deletion. Now, in order to replace it, it has to be done manually which would take some time to do. So first I would like to know why that section was deleted.

Re: My deletion about the negative review. I don't know why this one particular review was chosen for inclusion on the page. Positive reviews far outnumber negative ones for "Stargirl" and I felt it was unreasonable to include this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp2451 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Please start a discussion on the article talk page about the July 3 awards editing.

Editors should not be deciding what is and is not included based upon their personal preferences. Such decisions should instead be based upon our content policies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cara Mund

Hello, I have been trying to figure out how to message you back. I hope this message finds you healthy and well. I have tried amending the citations to your criteria. I even added additional information and context from sources I found. I am just trying to update this biography. Please revert back to my past edit and let me know what more I can do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjkd5968788 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended welcome?

Hi there! I recently saw one of your "extended" welcomes on a user talk page, and I was wondering if you'd be okay if I use your wording when also welcoming new editors? I found that your message succinctly points out common frustrations new editors run into, and gives good advice as well. I could possibly find a way to attach your name or give you attribution, or I can reword it, if this idea is a little too uncomfortable.

I feel weird asking, because I don't want to take your words as my own! But I definitely want to share the wisdom :) Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, - Whisperjanes (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Go right ahead and use it as you see fit. I made some effort to get feedback on it before making a template for it, but I wasn't getting as much feedback as I had wanted so put it on hold. The current version is User:Hipal#Advice for new editors - A lengthy welcome. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A question for you...

...is waiting for an answer here, as soon as you can. Thanks --37.163.155.214 (talk) 08:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded, asking for more detail. That discussion is fairly old, and it's not clear what you would like an explanation of from me, nor what you are referring to when you talk about other views. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered to your answer in a more specific way. I am another user, not the one you were talking to, I was logged out, sorry. --Centrifuga (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for your welcome, I'll surely follow the advice.--08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)United World President (talk)

Rollback changes DPS&C FSD

Roll back your changes about the DPS and C faisalabad page. The current IG and the AVM are indeed DPS alumni as cited via the official Facebook account of the school. Dpsfsdallumni (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have their own Wikipedia article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SOAP" in Brain Gym International

What does SOAP mean in your edit description of Brain Gym International when you reverted my overdone attempt at editing the lead? FMecha (to talk|to see log) 03:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOAP. Poorly referenced, promotional content. There are notability and additional POV problems with the edit as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content and References

Hi,

I've added high quality content and references to legitimate peer review papers for several entries and you removed all of them..... Is there a reason?

I also happen to be very knowledgeable on these sections as well (somewhat of an authority)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Highqualitycontent (talk • contribs) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already explained on your talk page, and have responded further there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came after the user posted on WT:MED asking for a review - I noticed that absolutely none of the edits qualify for WP:Rollback use and you did not provide an explanatory edit summary in any of them. While I agree that the edits are not completely in compliance with policy, WP:MEDRS does allow for citing specific primary studies such as specific RCTs as long as those studies are attributed. I've readded the information that HQC added here on one page, and will be going through the rest to see if they can be readded. One thing we definitely don't want to do is discourage qualified medical editors from leaving by mass-rollback of edits they've made which, while not perfect, may very well contain valid information/sources which can be used. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We disagree on the rollback. The editor was adding a large amount of similar and questionable material very rapidly. Anyone can see that I was removing them all for the same reason, discussed the matter with the editor, and recommended a venue to get further help.

I'm glad that the help I wanted is being offered. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ROLLBACK, that is not a reason to use rollback, nor to avoid an explanatory edit summary. Furthermore, I examined the edits, and none of them were such that they needed immediate undo. In fact, it appears that many (most, possibly) could've been solved simply by attributing the statements to single studies. While yes, the exact wording was not MEDRS compliant, it was a simple fix that you ended up biting a new editor by rolling back all their edits. If that had happened to me when I first started editing, there'd be at least 8 less new articles now, one of which I was told I should put up for good article. The material wasn't actually "questionable" - it was validly sourced and from what I examined was supported by the sources. My message here was only a request to maybe ask WT:MED first before just rolling back a ton of edits - because especially with new editors it may result in them leaving and being discouraged from contributing. Thanks for taking it into account. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Gupta

Hi Hipal/Ronz - thank you for your guidance on the Subodh Gupta article on how to handle updates on allegations. You mentioned trimming it and pushing it back - could you help rearrange/trim as you might see fit? I can edit further based on your action; I'd just feel more confident doing it after you've set up how it can be done.

Thank you! --Iamnemonic (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely I'll be able to any time soon. All the references need careful review to see what's actually encyclopedic and noteworthy. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Patricia Newcomb

When you move an article into draft space, because it is an undersourced BLP or for any other reason, it leaves a redirect from article space to draft space. Please tag the redirect for speedy deletion as R2. I have tagged Patricia Newcomb for deletion. By the way, I agree with your action in draftifying the page. I would have accepted it in draft space if it were a biography of a dead person, which it is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. I don't think I've ever tried this before, so I was expecting I'd miss something. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcoming but I'm been here for years

Hi Hipal

Thank you for your comment. I've been editing in wikipedia in 3 different languages for a few years already. Unfortunately my job doesn't give the time I'd like to expend editing but I do know how WP works. As for the warning about conflictive articles, thanks once again. I have some experience in that matter also and it also happens that Kiki Camarena case got my attention 15 years ago and I have read a lot about this chapter and many others of the WoD in Mexico and USA, both in English and Spanish, so really, don't worry, I'll handle it. One last thing: please, before reverting an edition and instead of letting a default comment in my talk, better participate in the talk of the article in order to discuss the best options.

Sincerely, --Cocedi (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.

I'm getting help and will notify you shortly. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The National Interest

Hi Hipal!

This is a response to my talk page where you asked about COI for my edits on The National Interest magazine. For the record, there is no Conflict of Interest, I have not accepted any fees, and I have nothing to do with the magazine. Regarding the "notable contributors" section which you keep deleting: the first undo you did was for citing too many sources closely related to the article, which I, in hindsight, agreed with. I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones, which you've now deleted again. For reference, please look at the Wikipedia article for Foreign Affairs magazine, which is not just more renowned, but also has a section on contributors, using at times language I would deem highly promotional in nature. I tried basing my edit off of that, and compared to the article on Foreign Affairs, my edits are not a unique exception of dreamt-up COI. If you think I am soapboxing or advertising, then lets move this to the talk page of the specific article and get a third or even fourth opinion from other editors. If there is consensus reached that they prefer your edits, then I rest my case completely.

Although I am technically new here, and your time at Wikipedia and seniority is both longer and more respected, it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits. I suspect we're both trapped in a highly subjective opinion of what constitutes soapboxing in this article. In my opinion, contributors to a magazine are definitely worth mentioning in an objective, neutral way, because a magazine is nothing without their contributors. Although I've agreed with many of your edits, I do not think its valid to completely undo all of mine as you've now done twice. Instead, a targeted approach to solve the issues you believe exist are more valid. If you and I can't resolve this ourselves, please summon additional editors, preferably at random.

Pangaion (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

there is no Conflict of Interest Great.

I replaced the sources with independent third-party ones They were replaced with a bunch of pr profiles that demonstrate no encyclopedic value nor weight.

Re Foreign Affairs: WP:OSE. If you want to compare articles, make sure they are either WP:GA-quality, or have had extensive and relevant discussion.

it is no grounds for you to keep undoing my edits. WP:FOC.

I've suggested you avoid such articles while you learn your way around Wikipedia, and directed you to working from independent and reliable sources. Ignoring the latter will get you nowhere. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this discussion to the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further to add. Summon the old ones! Pangaion (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

thanks for the Welcome! Spector951 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was disappointed to see all of my work on the Sandra Lee page deleted. The kwanza paragraphs do not strike me as achieving balance or appropriate weight. They seem to be a case of undue weight. Accordingly that section reads more like a sneering, snobby opinion piece by someone with an axe to grind instead of NPOV. Does not seem to be the perspective of an encyclopedia.. Rather, it looks like online "gossip girl." I am interested in your reasoning. Further, she is a person who has been recognized for philanthropy and other contributions to public life. Why did you delete all of that? 72.79.51.201 (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC) now logged in. Spector951 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding briefly:

Take a look at the article talk page concerning the Kwanza recipe.

As for philanthropy, where are the independent sources that demonstrate encyclopedic value, as opposed to simple promotion? (WP:SOAP) --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will read the article talk page concerning the Kwanza incident.

I wonder how one episode in her lengthy television career can be worthy of such a large portion of this bio. However, in due course, I will go and read that discussion. I wonder whether that discussion will justify allocating 43% of the Career section (and this woman has had a remarkably successful sales and media career over three decades) to one episode, and in that text, using primarily biased and insulting quotes from flame-throwing and unbalanced self-promoters. Does the kwanza cake episode really reflect over 40% of what she has accomplished in more than 30 years as a businesswoman? Would wikipedia's editors malign a male subject's biography in this way? I doubt it.

Regarding independent sources, I cited the Ellis Island medal with the congressional record. [If the Congressional Record is not independent source, then by that standard these servers probably could be swiped and lose 10% or 20% of what is on this site.] I deemed those awards (Eleanor Roosevelt, Ellis island medal) to have encyclopedic value; and, yes, they are also promotional to some extent. Again, I think it all is far above the bar that the vast majority of articles on the site have set.

Overall, I find this bio to be flawed. I think it exposes a dominant culture on this online site that is not particularly attractive or noble. Per the 2011 New York magazine article cited in the Article, the subject legally changed her name over a decade ago. Based on that source -which appeared *in print*- wikipedia has not even gotten the person's name correct. Spector951 (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC) revised.Spector951 (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you will look over the talk page discussion, you'll see that I had similar concerns about the Kwanza recipe.

The Congressional Record is a primary source. In the most lenient situations, it gives demonstrates little or no weight alone. This is one of the very strictest situations.

Discussing why an article is the way it is tends to be a waste of time.

I suggest finding much better references than what's been provided so far and bring them up on the article talk page.

I've no idea how name changes are handled. I'd ask for help, maybe starting at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this response. That gives me some reason to look at the talk page for this article. I also will go to the Teahouse site to pose my question. Spector951 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravishankar1827 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming 21st Century Icon Awards

Good afternoon,

May I know the reson why are you reversing the edits, when they are provided with reliable resources?--Enciclopedista100 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the message I left on your talk page? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes I did read the message. That's why I am asking why the contributions are being deleted when I provided a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclopedista100 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would help this discussion if you considered declaring any WP:COI.

Having a source doesn't mean it belongs. I think I was clear that much more may be necessary.

Poor and promotional sources are inappropriate.

Using Wikipedia for promotion is inappropriate. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A simple thank you

Just leaving you a simple thank you note for the warm welcome and the helpful advice.CozyHadar (talk) 09:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Jones (Musician)

Hi Hipal,

I see you have some issues with sources I have added within this page. I'm keen to improve this page by adding tables and citing relavant and reliable sources.

Can you assist by telling me which of the included sources are unusable so I can remove them and propose a revised update.

Many thanks in advance

80.189.102.239 (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the tables and the inclusion criteria for what to mention, I wish I knew where to get help. Try WP:VILLAGEPUMP. There should be relevant Wikiprojects too.

Thefamouspeople.com is unreliable and should not be used at all.

The strangerrecords.com profile is promotional, and should not be as evidence any information is noteworthy.

The book url didn't work for me. I didn't look to see what was wrong with it.

The Rolling Stone article is a interview that should be used with care. Unless I'm missing something, it demonstrates very little weight, as it's only a brief mention in an interview.

faroutmagazine.co.uk and countrythangdaily.com - unclear at a glance. Seems ok. Doesn't demonstrate much weight.

rocksoffmag.com - probably not reliable.

Use WP:RSN and WP:RSP to help determine if refs are reliable. I'd hope the relevant Wikiprojects have guidelines. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal Thanks so much for coming back to me and giving me some decent resources to research.

I have had a look through the suggested sites and now propose to add a citation to allmusic credits for the opening sentence as the credits cover songwriting, production and playing. For the career section (para 1) I intend to use the farout magazine article for the writing and awarding a grammy for 'Please Read My Letter' . For career section (para 2) I would use all music and via Google books] for Strange Sensation.

It looks like the discography /credits don't need to be referenced to such a degree . So I intend to only retain allmusic ones or anything I can find on Worldcat.org within the new tables.

Please come back with any comments on the proposed changes.

Thanks in advance

80.189.102.239 (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. I'm not sure what depth is appropriate unless better sources are found. I'll keep an eye on the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hipal. I shall make some changes later today and then await any comments from you.

Thanks again

80.189.102.239 (talk) 06:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal,

Can you have a look please at the talk page where I have questioned the date of birth that is stated in the article.

Thanks

143.159.153.54 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a look. Thanks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal - looking at this page today everything seems to be verified or have been removed. Do you think we can remove the BLP warning? Thanks 91.125.40.180 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hope editors will continue to look for more and better refs for the article. --Hipal (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref MLM

If you won't accept the text of an expert in the field who does not do MLM himself but has the research to back up his assertions, then we're going to have to do some serious clean up to remove the POV anti-MLM falsehoods, including anything published by Taylor. The reference even goes so far as to claim the source is FTC, when in fact it is his rebuttal to an FTC study affirming MLMs. DeknMike (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's an expert? Says who?

POV anti-MLM falsehoods I don't know what you're talking about. Please explain in detail with independent, reliable sources on the article talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hello question if i want to edit a article what should i put 👉 Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by John cenaFUAA (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond on your talk page. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:07, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome!

Hi thanks so much for sending me this! It's so true what you write. From now on I will adhere to your advice, definitely - thanks so much Miles Quest (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for acknowledging your terseness!!!

I hope you can try to understand I have been working in good faith to improve the page, and I am not a vandal. Right cite (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope there's nothing I've written that suggests vandalism is going on at all. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am genuinely trying to improve the encyclopedia. Right cite (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas

Hi @Hipal: It is not an advertisement. The point of the advertisement tag is that it two-state. So your essentially flagging it up so that somebody else can take a look at it. I work on the Spam team, I know what constitutes an adverts.So its not an advert and has none of the features that are associated with a advertisement article. The references are quite decent as well. I don't see any unreliable sources. There is two references to Youtube which are the low-quality, but all-in-all they are quite decent. scope_creep^Talk 15:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What unreliable references are you talking about exactly?? scope_creep^Talk 15:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We agree on the advertisement, mostly. Please don't waste time with it.

You don't see any unreliable sources? I'm concerned that you didn't look hard. That's the purpose of the tag, notifying that someone needs to do the work. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

You changed your name? I liked Ronz; it always meant good news--but I'll get used to it, haha. Take care. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My bad

Regarding this revert, that's my bad. I somehow missed this discussion on the talk page and thought it was a drive-by edit because of the topic. After reading the TP I don't think there's much more I can bring to the discussion, but I certainly wouldn't mind pinged for an RfC or such if it were to occur. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Sachs Page

Hi there:

Could you be so kind as to recommend where we might move the Arnhold Institute information that is not under the career section of the Jeffrey Sachs page? A fellowship isn't his career. He has only worked at Harvard and Columbia. The fellowship is an appointment and falls more under a scholarly achievement. I truly would like your input and expertise on this as it isn't appropriate under career. It would improve the page to have this in a more appropriate place. Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could find a WP:GA that addresses something comparable. I'm wondering if what happened while he was in that position is more noteworthy than the position itself. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: Interesting you should mention that - the statement on 'what he did' was originally based on a lawsuit document, which is not an acceptable Wikipedia source. There is also a Vice article that mentions this same thing in a couple of sentences, but the only reference for that Vice article is the lawsuit. There is no other source - one that can reliably back up the Arnhold fellowship statement. This seems very similar to your decision about my edit on his Tan Sri Jeffrey Cheah honorary distinguished professor of sustainable development at Sunway University appointment, which you said was not a reliable source. I'm trying very much to learn about consistency. If I follow your Sunway University decision, the Arnhold fellowship statement should be deleted. This article is rife with poorly sourced information, and the organization of content needs work (all volunteer created). He originally hired me to fix those things, but since changed his mind. The final thing I'm trying to work out for him is the proper place for the Arnhold appointment, and the removal of the $1M fellowship statement, which isn't accurate or properly sourced. You will note there is plenty of criticism of his work, which he does not dispute. However, this Arnhold statement is an accusation from someone with no source to back up its merit. I'd greatly appreciate your help on this. Thanks for considering. Best! LeepKendall (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interest. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and I've declared it in multiple places. That's why I'm asking for help from a volunteer editor instead of making the edit myself according to the rules. Can you tell me the difference in the sources for SunWay and Arnhold? I would like to understand why one source isn't good enough to support a new statement, yet the questionable source for Arnhold is fine. A Wikipedia-backed explanation would help. Thank you LeepKendall (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make a new edit request on the article talk page, and respect WP:PAYTALK. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. LeepKendall (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on edits

The official website of Khyber District website ‘khyber.kp.gov.pk' was launched by district administration. It became first merged district of the seven merged tribal districts to have official website.

Please advice me how this edit amounts to advert.

Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Females employees are required very strictly to wear headscarf with long gowns. According to bank Dress Code is introduced as cultural requirement.

This is the latest issue regarding the corporate sector in Pakistan.

Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esra Bilgic is vey famous in Pakistan due to recent airing of Ertugrul Ghazi on state television network.

Karachi Kings Dr (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

I'm going to copy this to your talk page, since other editors have had similar concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm coming from

About our EB discussion, a little background. Diriliş: Ertuğrul related stuff has a frightening amount of fans, and many has found WP and related articles (Quite a few. They even make new ones, some of which are worth keeping).

I first added the stuff we are discussing at that article, but that didn't go my way [10][11], which is why I had those refs "on hand". And TBH I'm still a little sore about that because I still think it belongs.

So when someone added it at EB [12], I thought yeah, this should be here at least, in some form. Well that's it, see you at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR request

Re [13] I am respectfully asking you to hold to this. Ok. I'll do my best. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re Please keep the conversation on your talk page. Ok. I'll do my best. I will be heavily refactoring the discussions though. If you feel I'm not responding to important comments, let me know. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Right cite: Before continuing the discussion further, I want to know if this is acceptable. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If what is acceptable? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My responses above in this section. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [14] If you can Great. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree to mutually disengage?

Can we both please agree to mutually disengage? And take a break from each other?

Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to take a break, go ahead. I suggested WP:COOL already. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you consider disengaging from articles I have worked to improve, and/or new articles I have created from scratch? Can we both do that, together, please? Right cite (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we both? As a show of mutual good faith? Together? Right cite (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify what articles you will disengage from. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. These three -- Al Seckel, List of think tanks in the United States, List of hunger strikes. I created Paul Seckel from scratch -- you appeared there 4 minutes later before it was linked to anything on Wikipedia. I saved Casey Calvert and Alexis Texas from deletion at AFD. I would like for you to disengage from those 3. Agreed? Thanks, Right cite (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the offer, I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Right cite (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you again. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did you come by new article?

How did you come to find a new article I wrote from scratch, Paul Seckel, four (4) minutes after article creation, before it was linked to anywhere else yet? Right cite (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you ask? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is disturbing and stressful to experience such a happenstance, and I am asking for it to stop. I think it would be mutually beneficial for us both to disengage, please?????????????????????????????? Right cite (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Expect that editors are going to join your work when you don't expect it (and that they may not join when you would like them to). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay how about if I disengage myself?

Okay how about if I disengage, myself? Can you agree to drop off one (1) page only, Casey Calvert, and I'll disengage from the above mentioned pages off my watch list? Right cite (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer, but I have to decline. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Right cite (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will respect my request that we end this discussion at this point. Thank you. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay what if I disengage from everything?

Re [15] What if I disengage from everything? I'm impressed that you'd consider walking away from them all. Thank you. How about you simply disengage from a single article, your choice, without any other terms? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [16] Thank you for your kind words. I'll disengage from them all, if you'll agree to... I appreciate it, but I cannot agree to your terms for me, which is why I suggested you not making any. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me not making any ... what? Right cite (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I wasn't clear. ...without any other terms, without the dependency that I do something in return. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re [17] I hope you'll assume good faith. You can always contact me if you feel that there is a problem in the future. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. I'll take that as a yes, you will feel that me taking some pages off my watchlist is a gesture of good faith towards you, as well. Right cite (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume you know how much editing I do here on Wikipedia. There's absolutely no way I can remember every editor, every article, every request. I will try to avoid escalating the situation. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you. Removed off my watchlist. If you can find it in your heart to disengage from Casey Calvert, I would appreciate that as a (non-conditional) gesture of good faith on your part. I'd like to take that article through Good Article, peer review, and I'll notify wikiprojects along the way, and hopefully you can trust that that process will help improve that particular one (1) article. I understand what you are saying about your level of editing on Wikipedia, that also makes sense. I wish you well and have a great weekend, Right cite (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that applies at Alexis Texas applies to Casey Calvert, so expect me to be working on Calvert's article.

I'm glad this went so well. Thank you for making this happen. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Fontes Media

Hello,
Please reconsider your reversions of my addition of an etymology section and the removal of unnecessary commas.

Many of our articles have an etymology section. Here are a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasagne#Etymology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot#Etymology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossip#Etymology

Nobody's soapboxing for lasagne or idiots or gossip, nor am I for Ad Fontes Media. I think it's useful for readers--many of whom we must assume read little or no Latin--to know why it has that weird name. Is it an advertisement? Is that somebody's name? No, it just means that to understand where a news medium is coming from we should go to the source itself.

Regarding the commas, perhaps you're a senior citizen? I am, but I teach high school English and have to keep up; we use far fewer commas now then when I was in high school.

Best wishes, YoPienso (talk) 03:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the examples. None of them are about a business, none of them are WP:GA-quality, all of them have independent sources specific to the topic of the article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar

Belteshazzar (talk · contribs)
July ANI discussion

I am thinking about opening up a case against Belteshazzar on the admin board so users can vote to topic ban him on eye or Ophthalmology related articles, this was suggested by several other users but nobody ever did it. I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE. See his recent edit on his talk-page. He wants to challenge the term "ineffective" on Wikipedia. It's only worth opening up a discussion if people are going to comment. As soon as I open it up its obvious Belteshazzar will deny every charge. He denies wanting to promote the Bates Method, but its obvious that is what his agenda is. He denies that the Bates method is ineffective. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Blocked twice already by @JzG: and @El C:, and El C's block log comment is Last chance block for WP:POINTy behaviour. We might be able to avoid lengthy drama with a few diffs demonstrating what's been happening since. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I said "possible future addition". That was not something I intended to propose myself. I put it on my talk page in case things someday change, and then someone wants to make amends for the way the Bates method was characterized. Belteshazzar (talk) 17:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Belteshazzar we are meant to assume good faith at Wikipedia but I believe you have been given so many chances that you no longer deserve that. I can't sit by and be patient any longer and pretend nothing is happening. I do not believe you are here to improve Wikipedia. I have just spent some time scanning over the archives of the Bates method talk-page. Have you reviewed your own edits there? I have never seen anything like it. You have been causing disruption there since March 2020 and it still continues. Every single piece of advice users have given you, you ignore. So I have opened this, you can comment at the correct board. [18] Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your intended link to this section didn't work. I could have just edited it, but I suppose it is wrong to change someone else's comments. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, I support this. It's beyond boring now. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, JzG Belteshazzar is still debating users on the Bates method talk-page claiming the bates method might be effective by an alternative mechanism [19]. Should I file a case against him at WP:AE ? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left another comment on their talk page. I've not started an AE discussion only because of the work involved. It needs to show the history well of what Belteshazzar has done, what interventions and disputes have happened, any other outside opinions, and identify the policies. IDHT, NOTHERE obviously... --Hipal (talk) 17:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede for Robert Todd Carroll

Hi, Hipal.

In case you're not keeping Robert Todd Carroll on your watchlist, I wanted to let you know I put a comment on the article's Talk page, suggesting reasons we might want to keep my trimmed-down version of the lede.

Best wishes.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert and the fine tuning. Best wishes. O Govinda (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of your comments on NPOV

@Hipal Thanks for your comments. I have reviewed NPOV and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source I have interest in the Feldenkrais Method article (FMA) and have been learning about editing. You seem to be an expert based on your list. I understand the talk page of an article is the place to engage with editors. I don't believe incremental change is the best approach to the deficiencies of the article. Please describe a better approach.

(Redacted)

Bbachrac (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Dispute resolution should give you many options to choose from. It would be best if you reviewed past discussions first. The Gorski reference has been discussed widely and for many years.

I've redacted some of your comment. Please focus on content, not editors. --Hipal (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OkayBbachrac (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Hi @Right cite:. I'm sorry we're still having difficulties collaborating.

Can you please follow the instructions at the top of this page In order to make conversations go smoothly, please follow WP:TALK and WP:AGF when contributing to my talk page. Comments that don't may be immediately deleted., presented with slightly different wording when you edit this page, In order to make conversations go smoothly, please do your best to make your comments civil and hold off on any negative assumptions of others (per WP:TALK and WP:AGF). Otherwise, I'll most likely remove any offending comments.? Can you do this please? --Hipal (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer the question? Can you try to closely follow TALK and AGF when commenting here? --Hipal (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, happily will discuss if you can answer my yes or no question at DIFF? Right cite (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anyone should put aside following behavioral policy in order to get a question answered. Behavior should not be a bargaining point.

Can you try to closely follow TALK and AGF when commenting here? --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't working. Sorry. If you are unable to follow policy yourself, then you put all your accusations in question. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MLM sourcing

If indeed we want to 'get away from the PROMO problems that come from such sources' then we should not quote unreliable anti-MLM blog sites as definitive sourcing. Mr Pinnock was a newspaper reporter before joining a MLM company. And any business professional in any business that publishes a book on business is 'in source'. The quote described the industry - the way a real estate agent would - and not a particular company. DeknMike (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you are interested in working on the article further. It seems like this should be discussed on the article talk page. Ping me if I'm slow to respond. --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disappointed for the warning received :(

I'm disappointed I received this warning. One of my passions is TV advertising and I wanted to contribute to Wikipedia with relevant information from sources I trust. I think I was wrong and I probably didn't understand the rules. I'm sorry if I did any harm to the Wikipedia community, which I sincerely respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralucadina (talk • contribs) 11:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you missed the warning from years ago. --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Technique edits

Hi Hipal,

I'd be grateful if you'd clarify the rationale of your three edits (reversions of material I included). Regarding "Further Reading" I really don't get why the two books I added recently are removed, but "The Alexander Technique Manual" (the latest edition of which has the subtitle "Take Control of Your Posture and Your Life") stays, and "Aphorisms" stays, and "Collected Writings on the Alexander Technique" stays. I added a book on the "principles" of the technique, and an "introductory textbook" published by one of the AT professional societies. I just don't get the criteria here. Regarding "External Links" I have no clue as to why what is essentially an academic index to writings, people, and events relating to the article's subject, which is put together in a scholarly way, would be considered inappropriate. I just don't get it. It surely is a helpful resource to find info on the article subject, and especially so for editors! Do you not think it is neutral? (For what it's worth, it has sections on criticisms of the "the Alexander Technique", criticisms of its originator, and critiscims of his writings).

Much of the article is not WP:NPOV and is not adequately referenced, and is in fact WP:OR. I put a warning on the article over a year ago. That was reverted without any remedial action being taken, and the article still has chunks of unreferenced OR (or to be more accurate, just some editors opinions). That does not seem to bother people though!Aliveness Cascade (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a whole, the edits come off as soapboxing.

WP:NOT and WP:EL cover external links.

I'm not sure why we have any Further reading, nor why we need more. Such sections tend to have NOT and POV problems without clear inclusion criteria.

As far as other problems, you should try to be more specific so we can determine if and what could be improved. --Hipal (talk) 16:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, but I gain no clarity from what you have written. Regards to the external link I added, it seems to me to match WP:ELYES point 3 well: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail" and also WP:ELMAYBE's "contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources".

And if soapboxing is the issue why do you keep the other books listed in "Further Reading" that aren't taking a specifically scientific look at the subject?

As to other problems:

Three sections of the article contain no citations. The section on "Primary Control" is pure unvarnished opinion and unsupported assertions. Please see: Talk:Alexander_Technique#Multiple_Issues:_Insufficient_citation,_original_research,_and_non-neutral_point_of_view.

Please see also: "Challenges a fair and responsible article on 'Alexander Technique' must meet", which I am in the process of writing, and which aims to deal with challenging issues in putting together a good article that are particular to this subject. ~ Aliveness Cascade (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion should probably be taken back to the article talk page. Hipal I don't see any problem with including further reading on this technique. Aliveness Cascade. Because there are a lot of publications on the AT a few is OK as long as they are not being used as sources, but too many does become soapboxing. As for other issues take it back to the article talk page. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking a further look at this to make sure what we are adding is compliant. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

Thanks for the note. I will try to follow the format you explained in your message about how to correctly sigh and not an edit.

I edit things I find that are wildly inaccurate. I don't try to fix all the inaccuracies, just ones that will leave the reader with a blatantly incorrect or false understanding. I edit those wherever I find them, even in biographies. If an editor writes a biography about Jenna Ellis and is giving the reader the impression that the Presidential Election just passed was pure, and people that think there was fraud are "conspiracy theorists", they are editing lies into the site. If you believe that to be true, message me. I can give on one site to go to that has compiled a staggering factual documented report that one has to be brain dead to read, and still believe there was no significant fraud. ^[1] Now, was that fraud enough to change the election, we may never know. But to say there was NO fraud is, well, fraud on the readers of Wikipedia.

I am a bit frustrated that my edits are changed back, when all I am trying to do is moderate extreme bias in edits. Whoever did the entry on MeWe, makes it sound like a site for crackpots, and that Facebook and Twitter are free speech champions. Twitter and Facebook can be whatever they choose to be. They can fact-check and ban whoever they want. But posting false information another site and saying the users of that site are nuts is pretty lame.

I find a lot of entries on Wikipedia extremely biased and slanted. As some one who has donated, and used Wikipedia in the classroom, I think Wiki has an important role to fill. But if it is not accurate, like a lot of media these days, it sows disinformation, and widened our division by presenting lies to readers. In that case, it is something to separate from and work to minimize usage. I am not ready to take that position yet, but it has to recognize the bias of some the editors, and allow those to be corrected. I won't donate any more, until I find some balance in the presentations, and I am willing to invest some time to make that so. Jstanzey (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest staying far away from any article where you believe there is "extreme bias" while you learn your way around Wikipedia, especially any articles related to modern US politics and biographical information for living persons. The Novarro Report that you linked is garbage. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://populist.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf

January 2021: Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See:[[20]]. Noteduck (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That's the very last place to go when an article is not already under sanctions, but the article is under sanctions, so it's not appropriate at all. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunning-Kruger effect article cite

Greetings, User:Hipal. Five editors have weighed in at the Reliable sources noticeboard here in support of the Yarkoni cite, including erswhile experts in what constitutes a reliable source by WP standards; none have supported removing or reducing it. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 10:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry I missed the discussion. There was no notice on the article talk page? Someone should at minimum do that and summarize. It may need revisiting given the lack of notice. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing issues with PragerU page case request declined

The case request Ongoing issues with PragerU page, which you were a party in, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee after a absolute majority of arbitrators voted to decline the case request. The case request has been removed from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but a permanent link to the declined case request can be accessed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PragerU - dispute resolution noticeboard

Hi there. I've named you as a "user involved" in the dispute regarding the PragerU page, which I've sent to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. [21] Please submit your statement when ready Noteduck (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antofagasta plc

...the previous sentence brings up unspecified connection between the Luksic and Trumps. It leaves out information as to what the connection is which I filled in with a sentence and a reference.[22]

I took a closer look. It would be helpful to get someone involved that could go over the entire article closely. From what I've seen, I think it would be best to stick to the NYTimes ref, unless there's something more up to date on the matter. I'm concerned that the previous sentence is a quote, rather than a summary. There are time-frame elements in the ref that are important, and details in what was added that don't seem as important. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of false info on wiki page

Hi Mr Hipal:

Please note that I am personal assistant to Ms Reema Khan and want to correct the mis information on her page! I want to make sure that only authenicated things are posted on her page. Much appreciated and thanks for your kind help. Best wishes, Mellatif (talk) 02:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Mel ML[reply]

You need to read your user talk page, User talk:Mellatif. --Hipal (talk) 02:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Awards and Recognition column of Mahira Khan's wikipedia page.

Mahira Khan recently received 3 awards for her Superstar, none of them have been updated so far. Since its a page with restricted access of modification, could you please update the said information on the page?

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:5500:B160:A0AB:A527:69E8:6849 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me. Please:

Make a request on the article's talk page.

Be sure to include references in the request.

Be aware that if the references are not of high quality, the content changes may not be made. See WP:BLPRS. --Hipal (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - Re: Ja'Net DuBois

Um Ja'Net DuBois was not born in 1945. The evidence points to 1932. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.11.8.184 (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you could identify that evidence on the article talk page, we might be able to change the current consensus for presenting two possible and well-referenced dates. --Hipal (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion template/ tag

Hi Hipal (we haven't communicated in a long time, hence I still think of you as Ronz) Could you have a quick look at Neo-Bonapartism and suggest the most practical option to propose article deletion? It was written in its almost entirety by an IP in 2005 and has since then been the subject of almost exclusively wikification touch-ups, with no discernible content value or sources added (bar a source, a book (unsearchable) from 1907, which supposedly references an earlier book from 1901, citing Edgar Raoul-Duval as an example of a Neo-Bonapartist. Thanks (and good to see that you are still here). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you are still here as well.

I got bold and redirected the article, to Bonapartism#Modern_Bonapartism where there's a modern reference for modern usage. I don't know if the 1907 ref should be incorporated, since it may be outdated. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and keep safe. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE

I saw your recent PragerU comment. I couldn't agree more. I was compiling a list of issues recently when my browser crashed [[23]]. I was pissed about the crash as I had quite a list going. Anyway, I see several types of problems. There is edit warring, bad faith accusations, bludgeoning and forum shopping. I would be happy to help draft or compile things if you are interested. Springee (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[[24]]. I'm open to suggestions as to how to organize and use it. I also don't know if ANI or AE is the better option. Feel free to mark things up in the sandbox. Springee (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've not looked at the scope of editing, or how much is focused on topics related to American politics or other areas under sanction. --Hipal (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that most of the controversy is related to Douglas Murray (probably not AP2 but clearly BLP). The Prager stuff was a continuation of Murray and the reason first noted ND. I think their arrival at Andy Ngo seems to be related to my involvement, same with the Kenosha Shooting page. I think even if only part is under AP2, showing the other material for context would be OK. Springee (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression too, that it's centered around Murray. I'm not clear if ANI or AE would be better. ANI is such a mess.

General sanctions apply to US politics per Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Active_sanctions

Discretionary sanctions apply to US politics and biographies per WP:DSTOPICS

I don't understand why the active sanctions list doesn't include all entries from the discretionary sanctions list.

From that, I'm not clear if AE enforces blp discretionary sanctions, or if ANI does... --Hipal (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit of time looking at AE vs ANI. I don't think I understand the general vs discretionary sanctions difference as it applies to AE. ANI looks like a theoretically better place but I like the structure of AE. ANI frequently becomes a forum with no admin input. We can make an AP2 case to the admins based on the PragerU and to some extent Kenosha Shooting behaviors. Can we do a combined AP2+BLP case? If not Murray can be the back drop showing this is a systemic problem. I like to think about what would be an ideal remedy. I would be quite happy if the admins step in and tell ND they are under a 1RR limit and warn about the disruptive behavior. I'm not out for blood, only an end to the edit warring and the other disruptive behaviors. I'm hoping that a clear warning will be all that's needed. That said, I really have no experience with AE cases other than obvious cases of an editor violating a previous sanction. Do you have experience in drafting complaints? Springee (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have experience drafting complaints.

Looks like the problems are continuing: IDHT, BATTLE, POVPUSH.

I prefer AE, even if the core of the problem is worldwide politics rather than just US. AP2+BLP seems right: BLP problems focusing on far-right politics worldwide, that's spilled into AP2 with PragerU. Are there other AP2 articles edited/disrupted? --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know this effort stalled but I think it is time to bring it back. I'm going to do some more work on a listing. Springee (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was hoping the pause in editing would be the end of it, but it's back to edit-warring and worse...--Hipal (talk) 04:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm a bit stuck. If you look at my sandbox I have a long list of diffs but I think this will put me over the 500 word limit. I can probably cut many of the quotes down since most of the words are quotes associated with diffs. I think AP2 and or BLP cases would be good. The AP2 case hits on several touch points [[25]]. AP2 has the following sections that would apply here 4.1.4 Consensus, 4.1.5 Behavioral standards, 4.1.6 Neutrality and sources, 4.1.7 Edit warring. I'm trying to decide if Murray could be pulled into AP2. ND added content about Trump to his far right section. That is a stretch but since PragerU is also part of the complaint and clearly in scope I think that would be OK. Springee (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, you might look at the sourcing/OR ND added to this article[[26]]. I might be off base but it seems like adding a paragraph sourced only to the writing of the BLP is a problem. Springee (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the BLPN post, and had been waiting for responses. I've gone ahead and responded.--Hipal (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The content currently in dispute for the Kimball article falls under AP2. --Hipal (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider the Murray article disputes to fall under AP2, but would note the relationship with Murray to the PragerU dispute and that there are related disputes at the Murray article. --Hipal (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed the AE [[27]] Springee (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was frustrating. El_C is taking a break from AE. I have a lot of respect for El_C and don't blame them as the only admin in the area. What a thankless job. Still, I'm not holding out much hope that ND understands the issues with their editing. Given all their criticism and acting as if we were an editing pair how ironic that we disagree on part of the PragerU page. Springee (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Ifdc (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this as "no action" and mentioned WP:3RRBLP, but can you explain exactly what the problem is with this article? There seem to be around ten accounts who have been tagged with a COI on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 15 accounts identified on the article talk page if I'm counting correctly. The subject is barely notable. It's typical puffery and promotion problems. --Hipal (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ritchie333 and Hipal, I have asked a pertinent question on the new account's page. I considered a CU request, but it's difficult to offer a putative master, with that long list. Not that I believe the list represents fifteen different people. Bishonen | tålk 16:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

The two things he appears to be notable for is having some lawsuit bust up over something, which sounds like a WP:BLPCRIME issue, the other is owning Guthrie Castle. I think redirecting the bio to castle would be the best step. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ifdc is quickly heading to a block or ban. I think that it would be best just to focus on minimizing the collateral damage. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333 and Bishonen: The dust appears to have settled. I've made a proposed edit based upon the talk page discussion, with no objections. Nightenbelle has agreed to much of it. Should I wait longer, or do you think it would be acceptable to edit the article at this point? --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. (plaintively) it's very complicated! And there's certainly not any depth of consensus for anything on talk: not many people are taking part in discussions. But what you propose looks all right to me, FWIW. Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Ritchie333 and Bishonen: I'm ready to work to have the editor blocked or banned. Discretionary sanctions apply.--Hipal (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they're back. I've blocked them indefinitely from Dan Peña and its talkpage. They're free to edit the rest of Wikipedia, which should work fine, since they say they have no special interest in Peña. Bishonen | tålk 19:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Media Bias

Hi. I was wondering why Media Bias is not an RS, for what Media Bias says. Thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:79C0:7E2B:7446:2638 (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Ad_Fontes_Media --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Interesting! Though its sort of weird - its main critic, in its article, is Infowars??!! :) --2603:7000:2143:8500:79C0:7E2B:7446:2638 (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Godtfred Kirk Christiansen rollback

Hello Hipal, thanks for letting me know about the issue with celebritynetworth.com. I was not aware that it is not a RS. I have given the article further thought and yes I would like to discuss it with you. I have an issue with your edit summary which states that the article should be rolled back. When I came across this article it was a stub and had very little useful information related to the subject's business career. I took personal time and effort to write something which at least provided a fair reflection of the subject's career and significant influence during his working life. I don't disagree that the references need to be improved to be more independent but to state that the article should be rolled back seems rather extreme. To do so would not be an improvement to WP and would not provide the reader with the essential information that summarises the subject's career. I completely understand that we should not use Lego sources but this information is purely in a historical context and not promotional material. I am happy to continue working on improving the references but I wanted to raise the issue of rollback as I feel it would be detrimental to the article. Thanks Fieryninja (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

This is best done at Talk:Godtfred Kirk Christiansen, but briefly:

The references need to be consistently presented with full information so they can be reviewed easily.

The article currently has 13 references, 4 of which are to lego.com. There are 25 citations to these references, 13 of which are to the lego refs.

The first ref, gravsted.dk , doesn't appear reliable.

A New York Times obituary was removed as a reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DRN-Notice

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding Political belief sub contains out of scope topics. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Scott Baio".The discussion is about the topic Scott Baio.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--2601:205:C003:6300:7143:2B0E:39C0:7011 (talk) 18:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring citation (The Hill)

I would like to know why you cited me for edit-warring on this page. I made one edit that was reverted with the ONLY stated reason being lack of source. It was only AFTER I provided a source and redid the edit, that tone was mentioned, by which time you cited me for edit-warring. I feel that this was neither fair nor justified, and request that you withdraw the citation. Gil gosseyn (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:OR in both cases.

My apologies for bringing up edit-warring, and doing so in an edit summary where it cannot be redacted. --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about sanctions? Gil gosseyn (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBAP2 sanctions apply. What about it? --Hipal (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What sanctions? And do they apply to all pages, or just this one, and for how long? I've never been sanctioned, so pardon my ignorance. Gil gosseyn (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry. Discretionary sanctions by the Arbitration Committee are additional constraints and enforcement on behavior and editing for certain topics where there's been an ArbCom ruling. Basically, editors need to understand and follow policies and guidelines much more carefully because the topic area is prone to disruption. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty Boy

I think you're mistaken - if you check my recent edits to the page here, I did not source something for the article from Celebritynetworth. I've had a quick look and cannot see when the content was added - there isn't an obvious credit. Good spot though and not lead-worthy so thanks for removing. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Wrong editor [28] --Hipal (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry - pleased it was removed. I never add "new" information to the lead - references look ugly too in the lead and disrupt the flow. I missed it when tidying up the article. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Brit On The Move about

Hi - how so - you've essentially just revered all of the edits that were done across the board - including where I've fixed broken links and corrected information that was incorrect. In some cases, someone took out the source for multiple points yet kept the source for one item - which makes no sense. What exactly constitutes a "quality citation link" and I'm concerned about the comment about relying heavily on promotional sources - I don't have affiliation with 70 plus companies. Nikki

And you've editted the messages left. All updates made since 3/30 wiped out accross the board.

Thanks for responding. I'll take this to your talk page, so others can find it more easily. --Hipal (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

== tonyortega.org as a reference for Chloe Fineman hi I am trying to resolve an issue and saw your comment related to it on the talk page. I have no idea how to use Wikipedia I might be doing this wrong. I went to your profile and I appreciate all of the info related to wikipedia and suggestions for using and editing. One of the things you mention is that "blogs and whitepapers are not considered reliable sources and that repeated use of the same blogs can appear to be promotional in nature". How is someone with a blog able to link their article to a page if this is not a reliable source and how do you handle? Sunswept19 (talk) 05:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sunswept19. Thanks for following up with me on this. I've started a discussion at Talk:Chloe_Fineman#Scientologist. I'll respond there. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Carlson article

Thanks for adding the COI template to the article. As I made revisions last night, I wondered about having that template added, but I have not used it and was unsure about doing so. So much use of the subject's first name, along with the previous edit summary, "... added more info per request of Amy Carlson herself" certainly give the impression of conflict of interest. I appreciate your acting on it. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celebritynetworth.com as a source

Hi. Thanks for letting me know and removing the link. I saw a spammy site linking there for some time so I replaced it with Celebritynetworth.com.

Anyways, do you think same rule applies for countless other sites that appear when we search on google? Samiur Rahman Chy (talk) 08:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most sites you find from search results are likely to be unreliable. As I mentioned already, check WP:RSP and WP:RSN whenever you're uncertain if a site doesn't clearly meet WP:RS criteria. --Hipal (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Longest Wikipedia

hi there is there a way to view the longest Wikipedia article by word count. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G2H&A51 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talk page... --Hipal (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Rossi

The article itself, which is well referenced, states that he was arrested and convicted for fraud. Unibond (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've been at this for seven years now. Seems like this is a case of WP:BATTLE. --Hipal (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate you the sound advice you offer new editors. To me, it is one of the most important functions editors can provide here. If you ever see me go "astray"or could handle something better, please do not hesitate to drop me a note. S0091 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's a good bit to add: directing new editors to article talk pages... --Hipal (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Dalio

What would you like to collaborate on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Locksteel888. Thanks for responding.

First, I think it would help if we got the details of your school project out of the way. What can you disclose about the school, class, instructor, and assignment? Are you aware of https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/training ? Is your instructor?

As for the article, we need to find some way where we can review all the proposed changes from your draft, and incorporate those changes that meet content policy. Paragraph-sized changes with clear edit-summaries are one way to do this. --Hipal (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much because of obvious privacy concerns. They are not aware of the guidelines. However, I would like incorporate paragraph-sized changes with clear edit-summaries. How would I do this in a way that is clear?

I hope you've informed your instructor, and perhaps school administrators as well.

What specifically is your assignment? What deadlines do you have?

As to the changes you'd like to make: Just try to work slowly and carefully. It's very important to identify when you remove or add references, and follow Help:Edit summary in general. Work first from the very best references you have (clearly independent and reliable. --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed the school authorities regarding your guidelines. I am taking finance. The assignment is to work on/improve an existing page on a specific financier/businessman involved in the world of finance. The assignment is due at the end of the year. Can I reinstate my paragraphs one at a time and then you check for reliable sources as we go along? In particular, I published a section with reliable sources including Forbes and the New York Times. Is that alright? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the academic year?

Sounds good. Hard to go wrong with New York Times, though they're getting lax with identifying non-staff-authored articles. Forbes is usually clear-cut: if it's written by a "contributor" rather than staff, then it is not reliable. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I published one of my sections. Let me know what you think — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please use proper edit summaries.

It's very coatrack-like, mostly focusing on Bridgewater Associates rather than Dalio (though I've not looked at the corporate structure to see if this equivalence is valid).

You're over using Dalio's point of view, including quotes, rather than the point of view of independent parties.

Investopedia is a poor source.

The last sentence has no apparent reference. --Hipal (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not allowed to use Dalio's own point of view. If so, how do you describe things he has said?

We should be working from descriptions from independent sources, otherwise we risk WP:NOT and WP:POV problems. --Hipal (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I republished a section on bitcoin. Edit as you see fit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. It has the same and worse problems than the previous version that was removed. Same problems as I pointed out above and previously.

I don't think this is going to work if you're going to just add your preferred version without demonstrating that you understand and are working to address prior problems. You're not even trying to add edit summaries. --Hipal (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by edit summaries? As in comment on what I added?

Yes, use an edit summary. I've pointed this out multiple times already, here and on your talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I'll use them in the future. I'll also go edit the investment philosophy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locksteel888 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of my edit?

I won't be able to get around to this right away. Thank you for using edit summaries! --Hipal (talk) 16:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Market Segmentation

Hello Hipal, I appreciate your leaving me a message. I edited a small part of "Market Segmentation" because this is one of assignments in the English class. It is not involved with any conflict of interest (COI). I will delete the part that I edited after grading of the assignment. It takes one week. Could you undo the deletion please? Thanks you.

Thank you for the details of information.

I have written a literature review paper about online customer segmentation in my class. Next assignment is "Wikipedia Edit." I return to the Wikipedia page that I used for the Library Research assignment, and I have to update the Wikipedia page by adding at least one new source of information, expanding at least one section, and correcting any errors I find.

Were you informed of [29] and required to go through the training there? --Hipal (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blondin Award

	The Blondin award of good balance
	You have been presented with the exclusive Blondin Award because of your never-faltering defense of the article Dan Peña. The image represents the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen \| tålk.

Hey. Did you notice I've semi'd Dan Peña? It turned up on my watchlist, with IPs taking over where ifdc perforce left off. That talkpage is a real sight, and made me think you ought to have got a barnstar long ago for your defense of the article. Now we look forward to one or more hastily-autoconfirmed new promotional accounts (or sleepers ready to go). The vanity is strong in that guy. Bishonen | tålk 10:47, 24 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, thanks. It's a mess. I'm very surprised that Peña hasn't simply hired a legit paid editing company to clean it up. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same Problems

I just left this on their TP. There’s something unusual about that account and that’s a fact. I totally support sending the Alex Okoroji article to AFD. It has been recreated 5 times now. Celestina007 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Prager

Why did you delete all of my edits? I included accurate information and cited all my sources. Please help me out here.

Responding on your talk so others can more easily respond. --Hipal (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

Hi Hipal!

Hey in page ayurveda there it is written that ima describes practice of modern medicine by ayurvedic practitioner as quackery is this line even required at introduction what are your thoughts as there are many other things that can be added at intro If you agree then please change that line and add at bottom Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:4900:5AF9:3249:0:0:1222:6F67 (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS --Hipal (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In page ayurveda it is written that there is nothing scientific proof that ayurveda is efficient in treating all diseases but the citation says ayurveda is not efficient in treating cancer please edit it to cancer ad it is creating negative impact

Please make the request yourself, identifying the section and references. --Hipal (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for disturbing you again. I have raised in talk page hope you consider it sir

Thanks! --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Lee (chef) COI edit requests

Hi! Reaching out because I saw you've been involved in updating Sandra Lee (chef) in the past. I've posted some COI edit requests on the talk page there. If you have time, would love your feedback. Thank you! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaryGaulke. Yes, I saw them. There's a lot there to go over. I'm finding the way you treated references that are already in the article to be more than a bit annoying, making it more difficult to review all that you're proposing. It would help if they were treated like the other refs as far as being able to click on them directly from your proposals. If you want to point out those proposed changes that you think would be easiest to review, please do. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the feedback! For named refs already in use in the article, I placed links to the original sources immediately after the requests in which they're used. I didn't want to duplicate the information because I wanted to make it as easy as possible to implement my suggestions in the article without having to update the code. As a workaround, I added the full citation to each ref immediately after the specification of which ref names I used. Additionally, another user already implemented some of the requests, so now there are only two outstanding items using existing ref names. I hope that helps. Thanks again! Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dowsing

Hi Hipal. I believe I am reverting the lede section to the establish stable version, until consensus is reached - as per WP:CON There are changes being made to it without discussion or agreement, as its being discussed on the relevant section in the talk page. This is standard Wikipedia policy. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talk so others can easily see this. --Hipal (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't realize it at the time, but I think you could have simply defined the named the references on the talk page. I don't normally work with references in that way, but I think it would format properly even on a talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing with sources?

I don't understand your approach removing sources. Why are you removing Times Educational Supplement and Poetry Foundation citations - saying they are not good enough. They are perfectly valid. It's a concern that you are not moving with care for the work of others and being mighty free with the removal of info. Anna (talk) 04:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best to start by identifying what you're talking about, and avoid looking like you're WP:FOLLOWING. --Hipal (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for forgetting the links. Here you removed the TLS link and the Poetry Foundation link stating they were not good enough. If it looks like someone is going around stripping out perfectly good and solid references, then, yes, I will follow it up, because it's worrying. With Malik, your talk page comments suggest you are looking for better references but you have reverted the citations from The Independent. Hence my article talk page question. Anna (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm having difficulties as seeing this anything more than FOLLOWING.

At Charlotte Mew, I actually restored and thanked you for the references before any of your responses here. Why you're here commenting about it is beyond me. Do explain. --Hipal (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media Bias/Fact Check

Hi,

On your user talk page you ask others to assume good faith, but didn't seem to assume good faith when you called my edits "POINTy". How does "POINTy" even apply? I don't remember us ever interacting before so I was dumbfounded. Per WP:NOTPOINTy making a point that doesn't disrupt Wikipedia is POINTy behaviour. I'm not even sure whether I was "making a point" per se.

For the record, I don't think highly of MBFC. For example, I think Media Bias/Fact Check's factuality ratings are so shoddy that they are rather useless for vetting sources on Wikipedia, but I'm ready to set my biases aside when writing encyclopedia. Politrukki (talk) 11:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hence your subsequent edit summaries [30][31].

My apologies. You stumbled on a long-running POV dispute. My mistake. I should have referred to the talk page discussions in my edit summary instead. I did thank you for two of your subsequent edits, and hoped that would help resolve the situation.

WP:BLP

As I have noticed, you are an expert in WP:BLP, therefore I would like you to express an independent opinion in Talk:Jan Żaryn#RFC on François Robere's second proposal: Views and lead. Lembit Staan (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but I'll take a look. --Hipal (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Bollinger's page

Hello! Just wanted to say thank you for tweaking my latest edit on this page, I got a little off-track with the language. I see you've done recent modifications on other similar pages I follow, which look generally fine to me, or at least defensible. Always happy to cross paths on those pages with more experienced editors who do good work. Robincantin (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're ok with it, and thanks for your work on them. Preventing Wikipedia from being overwhelmed by misinformation is difficult work. Still, when it comes to BLPs, the general consensus is that WP:BLP comes before WP:PARITY. --Hipal (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Lee edits

Hello Hipal,

I spent hours working on the Sandra Lee edit request. Can you please provide examples of people pages with Philanthropy/Advocacy that do not sound like PR statements? (Are Oprah's and Rihanna's) pages good examples? Also, which specific sources from recent edits are of concern to you? Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bach flower remedies

Hello, Hipal! Thank you for letting me know that my additions were promotional: that missing reference info on ingredients and a maker link were not neutral info. I do not think that being helpful on Wikipedia is my thing, haha! Have a nice day. (And apologies if I am also using this Talk thing incorrectly.) Colorwheelie (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Colorwheelie[reply]

Sourcing Wp:V questions

Hipal, could I ask your take on some sourcing questions related to the Andy Ngo article? I have some WP:V concerns and I know that is an area you think about quite a bit. Thanks Springee (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Question away.

Looking over the article and recent talk page discussions: The article has some rather strange levels of detail in places. It looks like Ngo's fans are a continuing problem with the article. --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of issues but I don't see that as overly surprising given the polarizing nature of Ngo and the topics on which he reports. Anyway, my specific concerns were in regard to WP:V and the disputed content here [[32]]. Absent reading the arguments of others and any consideration of DUE, NPOV etc, do you feel those sources pass WP:V with respect to the claims in question. I don't think they do but I think you are really skilled at cleanly assessing if specific claims are supported by the sources in question. Thanks Springee (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear that V is met. The Politifact article only brings up Ngo more than halfway through the article. The accusations against him are unclear.

Similarly, I see the Jacobin article mention The Daily Beast, so in that way it's verified. If there's anything else in there, it should be quoted. I'm not impressed with the author of this ref, and can't tell what his relationship is with Jacobin.

I don't think the Rolling Stone ref directly verifies the info. I don't understand why this ref isn't used elsewhere. --Hipal (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings on the PF source are similar. I'm not sure I see what you are saying about Jacobin exactly but we might be reading the claim differently. I see this as an editor noting that two articles decided not to refer to Ngo as a journalist as notable in and of itself. That is, the editor recognized a pattern in coverage and pointed it out. My concern is I would see the comment on the pattern as OR since the source material doesn't actually note the pattern. Do that thinking make sense to you? BTW, the RStones source is actually used heavily in the article. I initially noted this sentence when I was trying to consolidate some redundant cite references. A redundant RStones ref was added with when the material was added[[33]]. I discovered all this after my removal of this content was quickly reverted with slighted updated sentences. The original claim sourced to PF was I think more problematic while the revised version made the final sentence more problematic by implying things that happened in 2019 were in response to something that happened in 2020! Anyway, I appreciate your take on these. Springee (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm overlooking something in the Jacobin ref? What else is there besides mention of the Daily Beast? What is the author's relationship with Jacobin?

Glad the Rolling Stone ref is being used heavily. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm confused now. I don't see where the Jacobin article mentioned the DB. Anyway, I think we both feel that the wiki article sentence, "several sources have declined to refer to Ngo as a "journalist"." doesn't pass WP:V based on RStones and Jacobin as the sources. When I read them I do see where they say, "source X calls Ngo a [provocateur etc]" but I don't see where those sources say, "Sources avoid calling Ngo a journalist". I think without such a sentence the Wiki sentence is OR. Springee (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for any confusion. It's probably me since I'm trying to look this over on the fly.

I agree about it being OR. Better the article simply cover what multiple sources describe him. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for looking this over. It looks like the problem has been addressed. I appreciate your help. Like I said, I appreciate your clear thinking on these WP:V problems. Springee (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two part follow up. The same editor is trying to reinsert a claim similar to the prior one.[[34]] I still feel it is torturing RStone's statement to say it supports the new article text. I also think this is a case of the editor doing this to be provocative towards me in part due to the AE from a few months back [[35]]. Springee (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd request a quote of exactly what from the references verify the information, then create an RfC if the quote or lack thereof doesn't resolve the dispute. --Hipal (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nygard article

I noticed you removed the external links based on "NOT, EL". Is this shorthand for something like "Notability of External Links"? (There's quite a lot about Wikipedia I still don't know!)

Secondly... I would argue that at the very least, the second amended complaint was notable enough to remain. While there had been media coverage of the class action, none of the articles as cited contained all of the information in the lawsuit. I think that one of the articles linked to the first complaint, but none to the second. The lawsuits illustrate the sheer number of the allegations, as also their severity, so I would argue that the complaint is notable enough for an external link.

(Ideally I'd like to restore the external links to both amended complaints, but I accept the press release probably wasn't sufficiently notable.)

Please RSVP and let me know your thoughts on this.

AstridRedfern (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to WP:NOT and WP:EL:

WP:NOT: Is the policy outlining what Wikipedia is not.

WP:EL: Is the guideline on use of external links in an article.

The article is about the person, not solely about his current legal situation, and not about specific complaints against him. As such, the external links don't belong. They probably don't belong as references either per WP:BLPPRIMARY. --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

D'Argenta COI

I'm sorry, I didn't thought I was being disruptive. I was trying to increase the info ion wikipedia about the Spotify Awards. As with the Academy Awards where the company that manufactures the oscars is clearly published there, I thought in that case it would be fine to add the relevant info in Spotify. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Awards On the section of the Oscar statuette. Please advise how would you write it down so its informative to the wikipedia.

Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artsyst (talk • contribs) 09:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding.

You have declared a COI. You should not be making such edits at all. Instead, please make Wikipedia:Edit requests on article talk pages. --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your notice.

If you really think that:

Throughout most of its history, astrology was considered a scholarly tradition and was common in academic circles, often in close relation with astronomy, alchemy, meteorology, and medicine.[7] It was present in political circles and is mentioned in various works of literature, from Dante Alighieri and Geoffrey Chaucer to William Shakespeare, Lope de Vega, and Calderón de la Barca. Following the end of the 19th century and the wide-scale adoption of the scientific method, researchers have successfully challenged...

should be dealt with administrative repression then you are welcome to try your luck. Moreover, I have pointed SEVEN problems in the lede of the Feng-shui article. You are welcome to give some answers to them. Pldx1 (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

administrative repression Please retract to demonstrate you're following policy by attempting to collaborate with other editors.

SEVEN problems No problems, only your opinion at this point. --Hipal (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit in Lori Greiner

Hi Hipal,

I was wondering why you reverted my edit to include Bug Bite Thing in Lori's listed portfolio of companies she's invested it? I am an avid Shark Tank fan (and I like to get their products) and Bug Bite Thing was a Lori Golden Ticket winner! I am not trying to promote anything; I just want contribute to the community!

Thank you for your help and guidance, Sean

Lori Greiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Thanks for following up with me. The reference was her own website. See WP:PROMO and WP:BLPSPS. --Hipal (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth attempt at collaboration

@KoA: Sorry that I'm being persistent in attempting to find a way to work with you. If you're not going to work with me collaboratively, then we have a problem that may need to be escalated to a forum where it can be addressed. Your rejection of both discussing the matter on your talk page and mediated discussion leaves few options. Is there anything that you would suggest where we can address your behavior and not just my own? --Hipal (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only comment I'll make here given I am trying to avoid interaction with you unless needed, but article talk pages are the place for content discussion, not here.

(redacted per instructions at top --Hipal (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC))[reply]

KoA (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should avoid me completely, do far better in following our behavioral policies and guidelines, and focus on content and content policies and guidelines. If you cannot do so, then we'll have to find a way to make sure you do. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not avoiding me at all, but rather WP:HOUNDING [36]. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[37]. Again, please stop. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[38] --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[39] --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check the update of Mike Cohn's biography

Hi Hipal, I have updated Mike Cohn's biography Mike Cohn, he is the world most influential Agile people https://www.emergn.com/insights/the-top-20-most-influential-agile-people/ There will be no lack of attention. I added a few of his reports in the article and re-written the entire wiki. Please confirm again, if there is no problem, I will remove the template that you place. --Pmsuccess (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hipal, I have received your message in my message area. Thank you for your guidance. However, I am not a novice, and I also know the precautions for editing living biographies. I have no direct interest with Mike Cohn. Mike Cohn is in the United States and I am in Taiwan. There is a 14-hour time difference between the two. Do you have any other suggestions for the article I am editing? If there is no problem, I will remove the template that you place. --Pmsuccess (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a novice You appear to be a novice in what matters most, the selection of high-quality references suitable for a BLP.

If there is no problem, I will remove the template that you place. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. If you want to remove the notability template from the article, I suggest you very carefully reconsider your situation and next steps.

My guess is that you're a WP:PAID editor, or someone that is coordinating with Cohn to edit his article. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do a new AFD

It is clear from the discussion at User_talk:CaptainEek#List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_1979 that the deletion of the 2019 article didn't automatically mean every year article should be redirected. I do not care about playmates but i do care about indiscriminate deletion without clear consensus. Cheers.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing indiscriminate about it. Please watch your comments and edit summaries. --Hipal (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica, California

Why would we require that private schools have Wikipedia articles to be listed in the city's Education section when we don't require that of public schools? Meters (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply cleaning up after a spammer.

I'd assume a complete and regularly updated list of public schools is easily obtainable, while whatever could be found for private schools would be incomplete and outdated. I don't know what general consensus there is around school listings, but I'd guess accreditation would likely be an important criteria for inclusion.

As with all content, we shouldn't go far wrong with independent reliable sources.

Looks like you found a source to work from. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Antifa

No idea what BLP or OR mean. Antifa is not an organized group; why isn't 'movement' more accurate?–uncleben85 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR, WP:BLP.

Did you see my subsequent edit? Isn't it an improvement overall? --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that is a good solution! Good idea :)–uncleben85 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Water Ionizers

Dear Hipal, you reverted my modification to 'claim to raise ph' stating that a lot of 'them' don't, sadly enough the 'them's' you'd be talking about should not be called water ionizers, if the machine performs electrolysis I assure you that it raises the ph of the distinct flow ... how is the wikipedia structure in this regard, that is, what gives you the right to overrule my judgement?

Welcome to Wikipedia. I left you a detailed welcome message on your talk page that should clear everything up, but if not, it's WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question re MLM article

"(most sources estimated to be over 99.25% of all MLM distributors)"

(Personal attacks redacted --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC))[reply]

82.132.213.51 (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about content without personal attacks. Politanvm ^talk 12:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the personal attacks.

If the article content is outdated or wrong, let's address it by discussing the matter on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday Night Live's Duolingo sketch

Hi Hipal. Regarding this reverted edit: the reason I made the change was that I thought a direct link to the primary source (the video) was more valuable than a secondary source that embedded the video. Is there any reason why the secondary source might be preferable? --AllOriginalBubs (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me.

While the YouTube link appears to be from SNL directly, avoiding the problems listed at WP:RSP, it's still a primary source. Having an independent source instead demonstrates due weight and encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion re Saturated fat, Water fluoridation

Tempes1's behavior is becoming more problematic, I have started a discussion about this [40] Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Hadid

Earlier in the day, you threatened that I could be blocked from editing without further warning for edits I made on the Bella Hadid article, but I have not made any recent articles on that page that contain any unsourced or poorly sourced information from unreliable sources, such as tabloids. All of the sources I added were from respectable sources, so I don't understand the warning at all.Sweethavxn (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on your talk page with diffs. --Hipal (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I now know not to use Page Six as a source from now on. Apologies for the disruption. Sweethavxn (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Targ

Please stop reverting my good faith edits on page Russell Targ. I am clarifying that all the authors who are cited as being critical are members of organisations actively promoting a skeptical viewpoint ie "skeptics" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:E699:C701:1D36:A0A8:FF5:B417 (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you create an account for yourself so it's easier to communicate with you.

You'll need to find consensus for your changes. Please use the article talk page in an attempt to do so. --Hipal (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Nasheed Page

The Tariq Nasheed page is being flooded with biased and poorly sourced opinion links. I'm posting accurate information with verifiable sources, and some users are removing the verified info, in order to post bad faith claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wennradio (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the matter on the article's talk page. --Hipal (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Criticism section of Ravi Shankar

Hi Hipal,

This is Srihari. Thanks for your message.

I did not intend to engage in an edit war, apologies if it appeared so.

I respect your views that my update yesterday cited an un-reliable source, however the edit also contained citation from reputable news sources. To avoid confusion, I made further two specific updates.

1. Criticisms on the environmental impacts from the spiritual festival - The BBC article states that the festival was organised by Ravi Shankar, so I do not agree with your comment that associating this to him is 'problematic'. 2. On his claim for refusing Nobel - I do not agree with your view "NOT NEWS". The citation is from a news source and I have included his statement verbatim that the foundation did not reject.

Content under the header criticism should give the reader a brief of the disagreements towards him, irrespective if whether you or I agree with the criticism. By not allowing the edit cited from a reputed news source, Wikipedia will not be meeting it's community guidelines. Hence request you to revert the changes.

Looking forward to hear from you. 06:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I've copied your comments and responded on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tatjana Patitz

Hi Hipal, thank you for the welcome. I am implementing the adjustments you noted that are needed to balance and improve the Tatjana Patitz page, to have a biography of a living person that is deemed worthy of being on Wikipedia. Research has been focused on sourcing facts from journals, books or web articles from 1985 to the present in fashion, photography and entertainment publications - such as Vogue, Bazaar, Elle, and notable newspapers - that are reliable in their industry. Thanks again for directing me to the many helpful editing pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddhaBassist (talk • contribs) 06:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and responding on article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message

Thank you very much for the welcome message Hipal, the advice really helped. I appreciate the advice and tips which you layed out for me. Taking your advice, I think I'll start off with my sandbox for now and I'll try to take it step by step. I cant wait to become a professional like you! Thank You! MrMikipideah (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help. I'm no professional, but I do feel fairly comfortable in at least some areas of Wikipedia editing. Good luck! --Hipal (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steven E. Koonin

The article lists his book. The template for book citations provides for an ISBN, as well as the URL from the publisher of that book. Why have one, but not the other? Vgy7ujm (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I expect there are some instances where the url is appropriate. In that case it's advertising and spam. --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hello Hipal, and thank you for your friendly note. I do appreciate your taking the time to offer advice, and especially thank you for the constructive tone. So far, most of the comments directed at me have felt quite judgmental, and after so much scolding and suspicion it is a relief to find that a positive interaction is possible on Wikipedia. Best wishes for the holidays, and for a healthy new year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chih Lo Lou (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Wikipedia Reference

Hello Hipal, may I ask what made my recent edit "poorly referenced"? There was nothing controversial about the edit made, it was simply updating the page accurately about the artist's recently released album. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTruland42096 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding on your talk page. --Hipal (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Your warning

Thanks for your messge. I am new to editing/contributing to Wiki pages but thought after having benefited from Wiki for many years I could now help improve depth of content of some entries within my specialist knowledge. I take on board my need to provide sources in accord with Wiki policy. Thank you for your alert. Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.66.128 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on Talk first

You Simply undid all my edits without giving any reasoning. Which is possible vandalism or stonewalling if you don't First discuss on talk as my edits were factually correct and are of good intentions. I plan to take this to other channels if talk discussion fails due to bias, but willing to discuss properly with you first.

The studies I provided, contradict the previous edit claiming that there are no clinical benefits found. Also the intro made a ridiculous sweeping cllaim that all health claims are false or exaggerated. What source claims that? There's so many things wrong with that false statement. For one, how can anyone claim that all health claims are false?

One health claim is Goji berries have high levels of antioxidants and melatonin. That claim is true. Another claim is that it's high on melatonin which helps with insomnia. https://www.webmd.com/diet/foods-high-in-melatonin

The intro was misleading and logically wrong to imply all health claims are false. Or that no clinical studies found any benefits. When recent controlled studies have shown it increase antioxidants in people and helps protect against macular degeneration, etc.49.195.2.162 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[DaubeMoodie2017-1] Daube, Mike; Moodie, Rob; McKee, Martin (2017). "Towards a smoke-free world? Philip Morris International's new Foundation is not credible". The Lancet. 390 (10104): 1722–1724. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32561-8. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 29047432.

[2] ttps://populist.press/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/The-Immaculate-Deception-12.15.20-1.pdf

[1]

[1]