Hipal is busy and is going to be on Wikipedia in off-and-on doses, and may not respond swiftly to queries.
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.
Hipal, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
—Moops⋠T⋡ 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete Lucie Fink? The page was legitimate and verifiable. Paulthelawyer (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paulthelawyer is referring to the Lucie Fink article, which you PRODded. I restored it per this REFUND request, but I wanted to let you know in case you want to take it to AfD. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulthelawyer: Do you have a WP:COI with the article, as editors have indicated on the article talk page? --Hipal (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the warm and insightful welcome messages you leave on new editors' talk pages. Throast((ping)) me! (talk | contribs) 16:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, first of all, sorry for my bad English... :-) Thank you for explaining to me how to use sources in English Wikipedia in the future. I point out that I have expanded the article this time using the geneastar.org source, which was already present in the article (I had to register to find the information, and in fact they are slightly different from what ethnicelebs.com reported). I hope now Ron DeSantis article is okay. Thanks again. --LukeWiller (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Hi Hipal (or is there a concealed tautology in that?)
I read the edit summary for your revert and note that, of the 2 issues, you address only citations. I have reread the text and you will see what I said about fanPOV. Hence I have reduced the tag to leave just the one issue.
May I ask you to look at that issue again. I examined the references and they are mostly from perfectly reputable sources- Irish Times, New York Times, Irish Independent, Forbes, BBC etc.
I also checked the few refs from biographies which MIGHT be favourable, and they refer only to the most basic biographical information. Aineireland (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the article talk page, referring to my original addition of the tag. In this case, there's a clear anti-fan pov problem. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User. Just wanted to ask. I found such parts of text on the Gecko browser page:
Development of the layout engine now known as Gecko began at Netscape in 1997, following the company's purchase of DigitalStyle. The existing Netscape rendering engine, originally written for Netscape Navigator 1.0 and upgraded through the years, was slow, did not comply well with W3C standards, had limited support for dynamic HTML and lacked features such as incremental reflow (when the layout engine rearranges elements on the screen as new data is downloaded and added to the page). The new layout engine was developed in parallel with the old, with the intention being to integrate it into Netscape Communicator when it was mature and stable. At least one more major revision of Netscape was expected to be released with the old layout engine before the switch.
After the launch of the Mozilla project in early 1998, the new layout engine code was released under an open-source license. Originally unveiled as Raptor, the name had to be changed to NGLayout (next generation layout) due to trademark problems. Netscape later rebranded NGLayout as Gecko. While Mozilla Organization (the forerunner of the Mozilla Foundation) initially continued to use the NGLayout name (Gecko was a Netscape trademark), eventually the Gecko branding won out.[citation needed]
////
and many more. they are not linked with news websites, nor books. How do you address such issues? it that normal? V21v (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi V21v. I'm not clear about what you're asking, but I'll try to respond best I can:
You're quoting content from Gecko (software), and that content does not appear to be verified with a reference. I expect in a case like this, an editor could find suitable references to use by searching the Internet. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Hipal and/or Ronz. I'm unsure if this is a shared account. I notice that Ronz is on break from Wikipedia. If Hipal = Ronz, please accept my apologies for this intrusion. The most recent entry on the BLP talk page of the now very-famous SV entrepreneur Sam, the "chatty" AI guy indicates removal of his marital/partner status. I am confused, because the source is WP:RS, it being The New York Times. I also noticed your stated mission in editing Wikipedia, which seems to be one of tact while preserving integrity. That is why I'm broaching this here, not on the article talk page. Specifically, I need to know if there a reason for excluding that information from the BLP? If so, I will not reinsert it.
If you respond here, please ping me, if you would be so kind?
No, I am not a troll nor (very) autistic! My reason for making this belabored inquiry is as follows: I became a childless widow at a young age, so I keep an eye out for unmarried men during the course of my Wikipedia editing. I know that widowed Wikipedia readers do too! It is helpful for us to be informed of the sort of information that was deleted from Chatty Sam's BLP. Thank you for reading this; I apologize for the lengthiness. -- FeralOink (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Now I understand! I just went through the history and this edit. Please disregard my prior message. Sorry for the clutter; you can delete or hat it if you prefer. I DO agree with you, about the article having a promotional aspect, and thank you for tagging it. I'll do some editing and try to address that now.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. Glad that you're looking into the article. I did some quick cleanup, but there are still questionable sources and content based upon them. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Hipal. I noticed you removed the information I added about Koufax's family. The reason I used these sources is because they are also used on other pages and thought it would be alright. I also found the information to match other sources.
If I am mistake as to the reason you removed them, I apologize. I am still quite new to all this and figuring my way around. All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources are unreliable and should not be used, which you seem to understand for one [1] Point out any other pages using such sources, and I'll remove them too. --Hipal (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Will keep in mind and not use these sources. I now went back and noticed those pages are not featured articles and, hence, not as accurate. I will remove such sources myself should I come across them.
I would like you to clarify something: Find A Grave is used as a source in a lot of deceased peoples' pages. Is that source considered accurate?
Also, should refrain from using geneology sites when referring to a person's relatives/ancestors? Would really appreciate the help. All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the listings at WP:RSP. There are some genealogical sites that are reliable, but many include user-generated content. Find-a-grave links are an ongoing problem, but I've not kept up to date on the efforts to remove it as a reference and minimize its use as an external link. --Hipal (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with primary sourcing here? From my understanding independent sourcing is generally required to avoid NPOV problems and to establish the notability of a topic in the first place, so that had seemed fine to be primary sourced, although I'm not too clear on the guidelines for media summary. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MasterTriangle12. Thanks for following up with me on this.
It's their self-published information promoting themselves, so fails NOT (WP:NOTPROMO) and POV (WP:BESTSOURCES). --Hipal (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BESTSOURCES is the most general summary of NPOV sourcing, reading further gives a better idea of sourcing policy. WP:PRIMARYCARE is a general overview of using primary sources, and the use of primary sources for media summaries like this. As to NOTPROMO was that just about including the quote from their website? I did want to make that whole quote a link to cultural marxism just for clarity, but that would probably be going too far with meta-editorialization. I think some of the wording could probably be changed to ensure that it cannot be interpreted as puffery though, which specific parts of those paragraphs did you think were not appropriate? MasterTriangle12 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without a high-quality, clearly independent reference to draw upon, I don't see any way to move forward per NOT and POV. We're writing encyclopedia articles, not advertising copy. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that can easily be interpreted as advertising, and a few small changes would make that not a problem. I think you are misinterpreting those policies as being far more restrictive than they actually are, since it sounds like you think that primary sources cannot be used at all to describe what a company does or produces, or their statements about what they do, which is only the case for the being the basis of an article topic (often misread as being broader than that). NPOV & PROMO can certainly be used as part of an argument against including primary sourced material, sometimes even the whole argument if it is bad enough, but that is very different from it simply not being allowed, and there are several clarifications in the policies that detail where this is allowed. Maybe have a look over the policies that clarify this particular situation (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:USEPRIMARY, WP:USINGSPS) and articulate where you think those paragraphs went wrong, if you are not specific then I don't know what part you had a problem with so I can fix it up. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to get some extra sourcing though anyhow, it's not like it shouldn't be done better. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to disagree on basic policy. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was laying down the final word on those policies or anything, I guess I slipped into too authoritative a tone since it is just my reading and interpretation of the policies.
I was describing all that with a lot of detail to make it easier for you to identify how I interpret the policies and give you some starting points to describe where you disagree, or to be more specific about your disagreement with the content. I would prefer more than just a generality about what you thought was lacking before I start coming up with improvements. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't see how a corporation's own press about themselves is encyclopedic in most cases. If it's worth noting, an independent publisher will note it. I'm concerned that NOT is being overlooked. --Hipal (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wish policies were clearer on it. --Hipal (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's pretty good for factual claims about the world but when it comes to media or politics it's a bit scant. Even if they were just more explicit about where editors should use discretion or discuss it between themselves rather than leaving us wondering if we are missing some bit of policy.
Anyhow, I'm kinda thinking that whole section could do without the description of the shows, it's not that useful and as you noted the sourcing is poor. I'd like to have at least the count of the episodes to illustrate that the kids section is a large part of what they do now, that's primary-sourceable if dated, but it's a bit hard to find any other RSs that mention the program in enough detail to be worth citing, probably because they only started going hard on the youngsters in the last few years.
I'd still like to mention that quote, since it is quite indicative of their intent, but there's a big problem, where not explaining that it is a conspiracy theory is WP:FRINGE and just irresponsible, but explaining it would basically be OR. Would like to mention their classroom "study guides" too, but same sourcing problems, they don't publicise that program outside their bubble so it's mostly just little op-eds and posts from parents complaining about their kids being taught that non-conservative thought is the devil or whatever.
I should probably just make a thread on the talk page about the various kids stuff, the page is kinda lacking for how big the program is. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ay, I hadn't seen that Prospect article, seems quite useful although I guess would have to be attributed, thanks! Do you have access to that journal article? I messaged the author and they said they are trying to change it to open access, but didn't say how long that might take. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 21:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access either. --Hipal (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Wow, there's a lot in that paper! Let's discuss on the article talk.
Looking a bit closer, I'm not sure what to make of it. --Hipal (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is mostly describing the significance of the role PU is playing in radicalisation and making a call for further study, but if nothing else it is at least a good supporting source for some things. One important thing that it notes is PU trying to reframe it's fairly extreme ideologies as centrist and/or academic but I'm not sure how to work that in. MasterTriangle12 (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was having some difficulties with reading the reference. Fixed now.
If we treat it as the highest-quality reference we have, then the POV of the Wikipedia page should be changed considerably along the lines you've identified. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all! Good catch anyway. Some items in biographies are absolutely brutal to find on the web in referencing. Red Director (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article SALt lamp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SALt lamp (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hello. Did you read my edit summary? Conservative is in the following sentence, with the same link. Please undo your revert. SPECIFICOtalk 20:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read mine? What do you think of the current version? --Hipal (talk) 20:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Current one seems OK, thanks. The real problem is the use of the loaded and imprecise term "think tank" -- although there are plenty of sources that call it that, there are also plenty that call BS on that. It's fundamentally a partisan advocacy organization that cloaks itself in narratives that appear to be credible policy investigations but do not reflect rigorous mainstream thinking. Removing "think tank" would be good, but I suspect it would be controversial on the talk page. SPECIFICOtalk 22:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that replacing "think tank" would be an improvement, but could be difficult. It would likely take some very good, in-depth references. --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, in the interests of ITTITBOABF I thought I'd offer to search for a free image for an article you worked on. I do that. My hit rate for this sort of thing is about 10-20%, so I can't guarantee anything, but that's not 0. I looked at articles you've been working on recently, and saw Sommer Ray, which I can actually find a free image or two for; specifically she has marked a few of her YouTube videos Creative Commons Attribution, so we can use them, and I'd happily take a screenshot or two. However I looked a bit more closely at your edits there, and they're actually more deleting bits of that article rather than trying to expand it, so I'm not at all sure you'll be grateful to me for adding to it. I tried to find articles that you created, that I could try to illustrate, and couldn't find any. So - would you like me to add images to Sommer Ray? If not, are there any articles that you would be happy if I was able to illustrate? --GRuban (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer. Sommer Ray is a mess where I did some basic BLP cleanup. I hope to avoid more work on it given what looks like fan/UPE editing there.
I do run across articles that need images, but I don't keep track.
There was an RfC at Sia not long ago where editors were struggling to choose its initial image. They settled for a 2006 image. A more recent one would likely be of help. --Hipal (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm concerned you might have violated the WP:3RR on Sommer Ray. I understand that BLP is an exception, but the information you reverted is not libelous or unsourced, as the BLP exemption only applies to libelous, unsourced, poorly sourced and contentious material. Contentious, maybe, but you're probably not going to be able to successfully argue for a 3RR exemption with NYTimes sourcing. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 01:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one that asked you to use edit requests so that you wouldn't be seen as continuing to edit war and ignoring the requirements of BLP. It's a BLP and under sanctions.
My standard offer applies. I'd ask you to stop adding to it without clear consensus as BLP requires, so we don't have to worry about you being blocked or worse. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if Requested Edits is the best venue for the current developments – I think we're on a good track right now with smaller edits. In the future, please consider partial reverts instead of solving dandruffs with a decapitation. Since Dexerto seems to be our biggest point of contention, probably best to wait for the discussion to close since there is a CR there. Feel free to leave your own opinion on the source as well. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead with my standard offer, I am usually open to holding myself to one revert...
Smaller edits are always helpful, but without consensus behind them, they are edit-warring against BLP and applicable sanctions.
Dexerto is not remotely our biggest point of contention.
I'm afraid we cannot continue as we are doing. I'm going to hold myself to 1RR. --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to say beyond the following. I'm not in favor of using requested edits as it implies I am a connected contributor, which I'm not. Neither am I a fanboy. I just wrote the article because I thought she met the GNG. If you'd like to hold yourself to 1RR, go ahead.
Also, Dexerto just closed as Additional Considerations apply on WP:RS/N, with rare use for BLPs. I think we can warrant inclusion for Dexerto when cross-referencing other RS's and primary sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 15:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edit requests or something similar so there are no violations of BLP. Repeated BLP violations will result in a block or ban.
The arguments at RSN on why Dexerto shouldn't be used in a BLP mirror the ones I've given for it's use in Sommer Ray. There's no consensus to use it. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the feedback on my edit! For clarity, I was attempting to update the filmography and career sections. I am still learning and will make smaller edits in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abratimepoke (talk • contribs) [2]
In the source that I included, it said that Martha Plimpton had some Ashkenazi Jewish even if it was in small amounts. Genuinestyles (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @HipalI need your help related to article for deletion Rajmama (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rajmama. I'm very busy, and may not be able to help. Review WP:DELETE, and make the best case you can by identifying the very best references. At a glance, the Xpress Times is probably the most detailed, but it looks like a publicity piece so probably will not be enough. --Hipal (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know if it is possible to use AWB for this, manual cleanup for this would be... problematic? And do you know how this website got spammed so much? Thanks, Seawolf35 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad someone else is interested in cleaning up the avelyman.com mess!
I have never looked into how AWB works, or if other tools would be better.
Regarding the external links: I've been keeping track of what I find at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#aveleyman.com_spam. So far it's a very small number of editors responsible for a large number of external links. --Hipal (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a absolute mess to be sure, I don't get what the hell people think is valuable about that site. And it is established editors adding it too. Blows my mind. Seawolf35 (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HipalHi, I was browsing through your doubtful sources list and it's an interesting list. I agree that many of them are doubtful and are not trustworthy when it comes to WP:BLP. Here's a few more I think you should add.
Encyclopedia[3] Quite a few celebs have the incorrect DOB listed here.
Allocine[4] Same as above. The biggest red flag here is that it has Laverne Cox's birth year listed as 1984. When her actual birth year(1972) was revealed years ago.[5]
Moviefone[6] Like the above two, some celebs have the wrong DOB up. What makes it even more questionable is that the actor biographies that are on there, are a near copy/paste of their biographies that are on their Wikipedia page. If not the current version, then an older version from years back. So it looks like they got their info here on Wikipedia. Kcj5062 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's mostly just a list of questionable sources that I've run across on multiple occasions, before WP:RSP was created.
I'm surprised encyclopedia.com isn't on RSP. It's difficult to find how to use it properly through RSN.
I've run across allocine.fr. It certainly could use more discussion at RSN.
Another fake "fact checking" website, thanks for noticing the other instance. "Progressive" may potentially be right, but there likely are better sources anyway. I only discovered the "Truthout" website recently via a link from a centrist news source, so checked its WP article. When seeing "anarchist" and "far left" I have only quickly surveyed it and it was obviously false. When reading about "AllSides" however, tracing the origin and money exposes it. Thanks again, —PaleoNeonate – 04:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"A similar effort is “The Media Bias Chart,” or simply, “The Chart.” Created by Colorado patent attorney Vanessa Otero, the chart has gone through several methodological iterations, but currently is based on her evaluation of outlets’ stories on dimensions of veracity, fairness, and expression."
Hence my qualifier that the 2018 Columbia article is about a prior version of The Chart.
Is this the RS support you were looking for? Nowa (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take this to the article talk page. I'm not sure I understand. The 2018 CJR article was written about a version significantly different than what was available in 2018? --Hipal (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried a wording closer to the RS and showed the full quote in the edit summary. I also added a topic to the talk page in case further discussion is needed. Nowa (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hipal, I was going to respond to this edit of Ad Fontes Media on the article's talk page. I wasn't quite sure, however, what you meant by "examplespam, So". Could you elaborate? I want to be sure I understand and can address your concerns. Nowa (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXAMPLEFARM covers it, and links to relevant policies, guidelines, essays, and templates. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Super. Thank you. I've modified the proposed new section and put it on talk:Ad Fontes Media for further vetting. I look forward to your commments. Nowa (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the article for Ad Fontes Media controversial? I see there has been some discussion about whether or not their rating are suitable RS for Wikipedia, but I don't quite understand why there is so much energy about the article itself. Is there something in the article's history? Nowa (talk) 17:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The political issues (WP:CT/AP) with rating media, more prominent with All Sides. --Hipal (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for de-escalating the situation and for doing what you did. I appreciate the way you handled this after initially getting off to a rocky start. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
