User talk:Hipal/Archive 53

January 2021: Arbitration

I have filed an arbitration case request. I have listed you as a party. See:[[1]]. Noteduck (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [2] Please submit your statement when ready Noteduck (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

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.[3]

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

AE

I saw your recent PragerU comment. I couldn't agree more. I was compiling a list of issues recently when my browser crashed [[4]]. 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)

[[5]]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[6]]. 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)

Incidentally, you might look at the sourcing/OR ND added to this article[[7]]. 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)

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)

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

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)

I've filed the AE [[8]] Springee (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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).

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)

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)

@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)

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).

@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)

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).

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

My mistake. Wrong editor [9] --Hipal (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

== 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Ray Dalio

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hence your subsequent edit summaries [11][12].

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.

Media Bias/Fact Check (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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 [[13]]. 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)

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)

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[[14]]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Two part follow up. The same editor is trying to reinsert a claim similar to the prior one.[[15]] 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 [[16]]. Springee (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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

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)

You're not avoiding me at all, but rather WP:HOUNDING [17]. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

WP:OR, WP:BLP.

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

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

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)

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))

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

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

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)

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)

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)

ANI discussion re Saturated fat, Water fluoridation

Tempes1's behavior is becoming more problematic, I have started a discussion about this [21] Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)