User talk:Hipal/Archive 54

Re: Heterodox Academy

Hi Hipal! Thanks for what I consider the good editing on Heterodox Academy, but I would take it just a little easy on the IP for this last revision: I expressly said maybe one sentence would be okay. On balance, I don't think the podcast deserves even that, but I was trying to find some agreement and maybe thinking a passing reference would work (though the more I consider it, the less I think this). So, as I say -- I agree with the revert, but let's see how the IP reacts before we start with the sanctions talk. Have a great week! Dumuzid (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a block would be best to block, given the edits and comments at Heterodox Academy, followed by [1] [2]--Hipal (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @ Hipal

Requesting your visit to the article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if you are interested in the topic.

This request is being made to you since, previously you seem to have contributed to an article relate to psychology. And certain aspects of the draft I am looking for expansion also needs inputs from psychology domain.

You have left some message regarding some other article, I will keep you informed about the same as I get the time for the same.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:22, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bookku. Thanks for the invitation. My apologies, but I don't have time for such work, especially on a topic that is related to multiple areas with sanctions. Have you asked for help at WP:FTN? Good luck! --Hipal (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

New message from casualdejekyll

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at Casualdejekyll's talk page.
Message added 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

casualdejekyll 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Dowsing again

Hi,

You reverted my edit/s, claiming a "change in pov". Do please clarify, I was under the impression I made no such change. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I wrote large changes to lede without corresponding edits to article, change in pov - please work in smaller edits with more descriptive edit summaries. --Hipal (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes you did. And I did as asked, no problem. Note that what you wrote contains the phrase, change in pov; this is the bit I am now asking about. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Best not to take that out of the larger context of my concerns. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Best to work on the article first, so it's clear you're summarizing in the lede, rather than introducing (or giving undue weight) to new information. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Undisclosed paid at Ivan Misner

Hello and (pardon my snark) welcome to Wikipedia to you too!

What part of the article do you think is still problematic? It's barely 5 paragraphs long, so I'm not sure how much more "thorough" of a review you can conduct. As I understand it, the tag is there to indicate to editors that the article needs to be carefully and fastidiously revised to remove PROMOspeak and adhere to WP:N and WP:NPOV. As an outside observer who is unpaid and uninterested (and for the record, not new to Wikipedia), I don't think it does.

It is entirely possible that User:Trident13's contributions from 2012 were motivated by an undisclosed COI (this personal thank you message from Misner himself certainly raises eyebrows), and that's certainly worth investigating, but I don't think the Ivan Misner currently requires the level of cleanup which the tag implies.

With kind regards, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 01:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry that I thought you were new to Wikipedia.

Responding on article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 01:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

For your information

• Talk:Veena Malik#Refs

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

How to avoid PROMO?

Hi Hipal, regarding this, I noticed you had a history with this article. Respecting that I tried to edit the whole article carefully to remove PROMO material and to shorten that section to the cases of encyclopedic importance. But I suppose I have not been very successful. Would you please advise how I could make sure the added content won't be seen as PROMO? Thanks. Adler (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me on this.

Briefly: use independent reliable sources that clearly show encyclopedic value per WP:NOT.

You're an academic. You know the importance of presenting information in a larger context. While Wikipedia articles don't require all references provide a large context, each article needs some, and any section of an article that has none is at risk of deletion for lack of demonstrated encyclopedic value. --Hipal (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'll make sure to follow this. Adler (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Greer

Could you direct me to the explicit enWiki policy or guideline that prohibits/discourages/whatever "opinion pieces" from being used in BLPs? I have not found anything along those lines in WP:BLP, but perhaps I have missed something. I am absolutely, positively not going to edit war over this, but...you know, if an RS reports that the subject supports/believes a conspiracy theory (which does not seem surprising given the oeuvre for which they are notable), then I don't see any BLP problem here. And the source is reliable. You can respond on my Talk page if you wish. Thanks. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me on this.

WP:RSEDITORIAL, WP:BLPPRIMARY --Hipal (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

...and pretty much none of Greer's "documentaries," all of which are steeped in breathless, sensational conspiracy theories of one sort or another, seem to have been reviewed/covered/described by independent, reliable, secondary sources. Not surprising. So attaching to him, in Wiki-voice, "conspiracy theorist" or terms like it seems, ironically, a bridge too far. Thanks for the feedback. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that. Why would you bring it up here? --Hipal (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the subsection you removed from the article - that is, the action at the center of this discussion - concerned conspiracy theory. Look, everything is cool, I am not going to revert you, and this will be my final contribution to this discussion. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. As I pointed out, I don't think the single reference supports the material. --Hipal (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thanks for being so rational when addressing the dispute over at Talk:Alexa Demie#Name change! It seems small but addressing things like this in a way that's purely based on guidelines and the quality of references and meant to reach an agreement rather than simply get your way is a rarity on here, and I appreciate it. benǝʇᴉɯ 07:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary at Karine Jean-Pierre

Hi, Hipal. I agree with the person addressed that this kind of edit summary should be avoided, no matter what the context is. Bishonen | tålk 17:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC).

Agreed, and I believe we've all been too patient with an editor needs to be banned from such articles. --Hipal (talk) 19:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

All I did was revert your wording with a very polite comment that I didn't think it was the best wording. Another editor agrees with me that "attacked" is not, in fact, the best wording here. I'm not exactly sure what makes you think that is banworthy? Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the addition was overly bold, if not a continuation of the previous edit-warring. The revert was a continuation of the edit-warring. All the while the comments on the talk page are regularly directed at editors rather than policy and article content. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I only added the content because several days had passed with no disagreement as to the notability of the source and a reasonable understanding that something was worth mentioning, without any real pushback from you or others involved, which is why it uses a near identical version proposed by YoPienso alongside the Times citation, widely agreed to be the best one out there. If you felt that was continuing an edit war, that's unfortunate, but it had been three days. I would also strongly encourage you to re-add the Psaki bit; without it, the only content on the page currently is that she said both were stolen, not that she presently believes (per Psaki) that they aren't. This could mislead readers. Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbEnf applies, doubly. --Hipal (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Hipal, FYI, you just slipped past 3RR. Though I don't recommend it, you might arguably claim the "obvious vandalism" exemption for the "NOTHERE" edit you reverted. You're supposed to note at the talk page if you're claiming an exemption. I think the safest call would be to self-revert. Hope this helps, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.

Let's get the NOTHERE ips blocked. --Hipal (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi Hipal,

I don't think we've come across each other before, either on the surname articles or the Anthroponymy project, so nice to meet you.
(redacted --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC))
Please respond on your talk page, not mine, as my IP changes with frequency. Take care 2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:95E:643C:2534:91A3 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion. For us to continue, I ask you to stop making edits/comments like [3][4][5][6] [7][8]--Hipal (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

(Response redacted --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC))

2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

IP, if we're talking about healthy manners, let me point you to Help:Logging in. It's like this: you do not get to edit without logging in, certainly not on an article where you have edited under your account. Hipal, that article is such a bloated mess that I am tempted to revert back to this version. What do you think? Drmies (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree to the reversion Drmies. And the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that IPs and users are the same, we're all WP:HUMAN. That's why I prefer an IP.

(redacted --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC))

2A00:23C8:4384:FB01:20BF:1264:A707:C04C (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The reversion looks fine. I've not paid much attention to the general consensus for name articles, but from what I've seeing at RSN, a simple list may be best. --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

To the ip: If you are moving on as you said, there's no need to edit-war to restore your comments here. Sorry it's come to this. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

GA election

One edit I made was that she did not provide evidence. In the article SA was quoted as saying she had no evidence.

Also, it the referenced article in the first paragraph it clearly say alleged.

Not sure why you deleted my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.203.28.160 (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR to drive a WP:POV. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

HELP ME PLEASE.

Please Hipal, I would like to know if rollbackers can revert edits made on user pages?. If its possible please revert mine thanks I made a mistake and removed everything. Uricdivine (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hi, Uricdivine. Hipal is not an administrator, and can't perform any other actions on your userpage than you can yourself. But I can. I'm not sure what you want done, though. Was it removing everything that was a mistake? Or did you mean to make your userpage blank, and now you're worried that there's too much personal information about you in the page history? Both would be very legitimate concerns, that I can fix, but you'd better tell me what exactly you want done first. Do you want to restore this version, with the userboxes? Either Hipal or I can do that. Or do you want your personal information removed from the history? I can do that. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen.

Uricdivine, you can do it yourself, by undoing that last edit of yours to the userpage; or going to the page history, selecting the past version, then editing it to make it current again. --Hipal (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Re

Hi Hipal. I received your message that said that I made an edit on the wiki page of a living person and allegedly did not support that edit. But you didn’t tell me which page or edit. I’ll try to figure it out but would be much easier if you could tell me. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendswLarrySanger (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Dr Dean Ornish

Hi Hipal. So I went through and found the edit in which you had a problem.

Dr. Dean Ornish. I had to switch my source because they said that Oprah Winfrey interviewing Dean Ornish and his wife wasn’t sufficient. I don’t know how to look up what I changed it to but I have his other two wives as well and numerous websites like Oprah‘s that not only interview them but talk about his wives. Not a big Opry fan but I’m guessing that’s not enough. What would you like as the form of a source? I appreciate this as I know you’ve been on here 17 years and I’m just learning. I just know Larry. Coincidentally I know Dean as well. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendswLarrySanger (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are just a couple articles about Dean‘s wife’s

I see all of the information about his wives have been taken down.

This is his former wife Molly Ornish in Forbes magazine where it explains their marriage and their ages. https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0501/6510084a.html?sh=5d209c50154a

Here is his current wife Anne Ornish on the front of oprah.com being interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and saying no less than 27 times in the interview that she is his wife and he is her husband.

There are thousands of other sources but none better known as Oprah.

https://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/dean-and-anne-ornish

And here is his very first wife Shirley Brown mentioned in the New York Times with Dean https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/29/magazine/hearts-and-minds.html

And here is the LA Times talking about Dean divorcing one of his wives Shirley, this is allegedly the first.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-03-10-ls-45179-story.html

I sourced these earlier. Granted I’m new but are the LA Times, New York Times, Forbes magazine, Oprah, and i’m happy to name sources even bigger than these, not enough to list his three wives on record?

I thought of including a couple famous girlfriends but I figured I would just list the three wives all of what you have taken down. Please let me know what I need to do to get them back up as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendswLarrySanger (talk • contribs) 21:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. You wrote me Friday afternoon that I didn’t back up my sources for Dr. Dean Ornish’s three marriages. I have since provided Links from the LA Times, New York Times, good morning America, he with his wives on the Oprah Winfrey show, Links to Opera which I know don’t count but I have also Forbes magazine. Without the Oprah link I can still have links that are approved by Wikipedia for all three marriages. I haven’t heard back. It’s almost Monday morning here. FriendswLarrySanger (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Amir Arison und Question for You about German Misinformations

Amir Arison is Ashkenazi Jewish (even his Israeli side is Ashkenazi) , his mother is Ukrainian and Polish Jewish and his father is a Romanian Jew , his parents are Ron Arison and Zippora Arison . Also what can I do about German WikiPedia , German WikiPedia Users spread misinformation in German. Example : The original WikiPedia page of Oded Fehr says he is Ashkenazi JEwish (his parents are German JEwish) , this has been confirmed also on genealogical websites and the name of his parents etc and all over the Internet , yet German users claim without evidence different ethnicities such as Spain and Denmark and leave out his Jewish heritage.

Also German Users call Andrea Gabriel half Iranian which is Bullshit , Andrea Gabriel is 100 % Ashkenazi Jewish . Even her ORIGINAL English Wikipedia Page lists her as Russian Jewish and Polish Jewish and NOT IRanian, also Andrea Gabriels father was Jack Arnold Monkarsh (changed his name to John Gabriel) and her mother Sandra Cohen both Ashkenazi Jewish , this has been confirmed on several genealogical websites and all over the Internet , also her father has an own WikiPedia article and he is listed as Russian Jewish and Polish Jewish . Germans write Bullshit and claim Bullshit without evidence . What can I do my friend

Vikzal271 (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are the same person that was using the Vikzal28 account and that you have seen the comments at User_talk:Vikzal28. Apologies if I assumed incorrectly.

You've started a discussio at Talk:Andrea Gabriel. Thank you. I've responded there. --Hipal (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Verifikado

Hi! I can see that you're a experienced user, so I prefer to make a personal comment before leaving a template. You have not explained why you are disputing the reliability of Verifikado as a source, and the edit summaries you have provided ([9][10][11]), saying that the source "doesn't appear" reliable, sounds more like a personal appreciation.

The website is not a blog, a self-published reference or has any indications that suggest that it is unreliable, particularly without examples. Contrary to what you have mentioned, saying that the onus lies on me to demonstrate reliability, it has otherwise remained undisputed for years, SandyGeorgia has supported its inclusion, and per WP:BRD the onus lies on you to demonstrate the contrary. So far, the closest rationale given is that the lack of discussion from the community can lead to doubts regarding an outlet's reliability, but this is a particularly problematic conclusion in the case of recently created or non-English sources, and this case is precisely the latter. Your last reverts likewise do not make any consideration regarding improvements made, such as the inclusion of additional references([12]). This, including the repeated lack of explanation, makes this is growingly disruptive.

I ask you to please explain further why you had the impression that the reference is not reliable. As I once said, I'd be happy to answer any concerns that you have. Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 14:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

No one has begun to demonstrate it's reliable. Please don't waste my time if that remains the case. --Hipal (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Icertis dispute

I've created Talk:Icertis#Third_opinion and listed this at WP:3O. Hopefully this will help move this forward. Let me know if you object to this. If so, there are other options available. ~Kvng (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There are four editors involved, so 3O isn't an option. Perhaps COIN would be best. --Hipal (talk) 03:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, as you wish ~Kvng (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I've looked at WP:COIN and I'm not sure this applies. A WP:COI has been declared and I don't think we're accusing anyone of editing without declaring or other misbehavior. From my perspective, this is a content dispute and so the options listed at WP:DISPUTE seem to be more appropriate. If you want to go to WP:COIN with it, you're going to need to take it yourself or at least explain to me what WP:COI-related issues and remediation you want to discuss. ~Kvng (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be correct. I am concerned that you attempted to argue an exception to 3O because an involved editor had a COI. I'm concerned that the article is written from the POV of editors with clear or likely COIs. --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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 discussion is about the topic Icertis.

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

~Kvng (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate the steer

I see you have been a Wikipedia editor for such a long time and this comes with some level of wisdom and expertise which is worthy of recognition. Was nice you took time to drop me some lines after the deliberation which I find civil. I see the point you are making regarding new editors and frankly speaking I understand!

Again, thanks and I looking forward to learning more from you and others who are open to good conversation :)

Cheers Burberryjzk89 (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I've left many more resources for you on your talk page. I hope you find some of them to be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Dean Ornish

Hi there Hapel. I provided you with New York Times, LA Times, good morning America, Oprah Winfrey show and other main stream sources with proof of all three of Dean Ornish‘s marriages although I think there are four total. Was that not enough or did that not suffice for you to put the marriages back up on Wikipedia?

You wrote me last week and I wrote you back properly and it’s been a week or so since I’ve heard from you after you took down three marriages all of which are sourced and backed up which I sourced and back up when I put it up there to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendswLarrySanger (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean. I don't see any relevant edits from you, but do see more editors concerned with your edits to date. Please use article talk pages to discuss how to improve articles. --Hipal (talk) 03:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: Jeffrey Sachs article revert

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1096964985

not sure what you mean by “clear for revert.” Let me know. I’ve reverted fyi. JustinReilly (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I was unable to revert the problematic content without first reverting your edit first.

Please use the article talk page for any further attempts to gain consensus for inclusion of the material. Please don't restore it until there is consensus to do so per BLP. --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

not confusing you with someone else

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWhoAmIYouDoNotKnow&type=revision&diff=1099945938&oldid=1099653697 WhoAmIYouDoNotKnow (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

So what's the problem? --Hipal (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sources when dealing with Mandopop stars

I added Bloomberg, Encyclopedia Brytanica, as well as a few sources that weren't in Chinese, as you seemed to object to that. Please take another look and feel free to give me more feedback on how to improve my contribution to the page ya'll asked for sources on. Thanks. SoCalGoetz (talk) 08:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted a number of my sources. I did add back two of them. But I see here you've been here 17 years and have a talk page a mile long so idk if I should remove them or not. Please review the Hua Chenyu TALK page before deleting my UPDATE. I did not reinsert the page with a porn ad. I'll review your policy on sources more thoroughly before contributing further. SoCalGoetz (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I know some of the claims seem outlandish, but this guy is a pretty big deal in China SoCalGoetz (talk) 08:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Pull up YouTube "Hua Chenyu Nanping Evening Bell" om Youtube if you doubt any claims on the page SoCalGoetz (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Be sure to watch the whole thing; there's a surprise SoCalGoetz (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

When I nominated Hua Chenyu for People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive, President Xi Jinpijg responded "Hua Chenyu is a rebellious rascal." SoCalGoetz (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hold on, no, he said "Yu is a rebellious rascal" I think (it's archived in an old Twitter account on my phone, I could pull it up if you want proof and the exact words, but it might have been an assistant of his that handles social media. SoCalGoetz (talk) 09:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there a difference between source quality in 1. Verifying what's already in Wikipedia v 2. Adding to Wikipedia v 3. Changing what's in Wikipedia?

Or are they all held to the same academic rigor? SoCalGoetz (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with clearly reliable sources, no matter the language.

Perhaps you can use the article talk page to get others to review your suggestions first. --Hipal (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with my surviving edits on the page. Thank you. SoCalGoetz (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Everything not verified with reliable sources should be removed, so don't expect unverified changes to remain. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Seema Verma -- help requested

You asked that edits be made in chunks and with consensus. In fact, had you checked, I had been doing that. Moreover, I have been working on consensus for months. No one with authority is weighing in. I asked for BLP Noticeboard help here. Nothing happened. I placed a NPOV box on it, and it was removed without addressing the issues. Earlier I did what I thought was a balanced draft here, which included the criticisms, and it was reverted.

(Comment refactored --Hipal (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC))

Doesn't BLP and NPOV mean anything? I respectfully submit that since no wrongdoing was ever found (the appearance of wrongdoing is different from actual wrongdoing), then perhaps the proper course is to start with a clean article and gain consensus on what criticisms merit inclusion and what ones merely unfairly attack. W21040tx (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Seema Verma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I've refactored your comment. I hope it's clear why.

I came across the article as a result of the BLPN discussion. I did some very cursory cleanup, and noted it on the article talk page. I've barely given it any attention since, until your massive rewrite made in a single edit.

I see Morbidthoughts did some cleanup as well.

As I wrote on the article talk page, please point out any poor or unreliable references and work from there. Once we've done that, we can look for other BLP issues, especially NOT and POV. --Hipal (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the Courtesy Notice

I don't mind disagreements :) thanks for letting me know about the discussion in terms of a new account that undid your revisions. i saw the discussion just before seeing yours. I see my name was cleared; wow what a team we have. Thanks for the heads up :) and for your many Wikipedia Emcyclopedia contributions. I dig current events but it's important to have people like you looking out for Wikipedia's integrity. I didn't mind the revision to the Mund article; you said "recentism" (or something like that) I watch the articles I contribute to and learn as I go. SoCalGoetz (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I think Harvard is a very credible source and might disagree that their award to Cara Mund was "undue" but I didn't mind you reverting my change; you kept my source even if deleting its elaboration SoCalGoetz (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Karine Jean-Pierre

Please stop making empty threats. You're accomplishing nothing here other than irritating me even further. Toa Nidhiki05 17:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out policy problems and how they are enforced is not a "threat".

I'll do my best not to irritate you. Maybe you can try to do the same, or simply try to follow WP:TALK and WP:FOC? --Hipal (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Harper Lee

On Lee's Wikipedia article, there is a sentence talking about her relationship with Robert E. Lee and the Lee family. I removed it, because it is unproven, and you reverted it. You cited "unexplained deletion of referenced info" as your reason, so here's my explanation on the removal.

There are two referenced news articles in that citation, one from USA Today and another from Time. USA Today states that she was a descendant of Robert E. Lee, and Time states that they were from the same family. This is a huge conflict that should immediately cause a red flag. I have done my research on her family (which happens to be my family as well), and the farthest Lee's paternal line can be proven back is to Tobias Lee (c. 1803-c. 1875), who is speculated to be the child of James Lee (c. 1760-c. 1820). That is as far back as her Lee family line can be traced, and nowhere does it hit Robert's line.

If you can genealogically prove Lee is descended from Richard Lee I and a member of the Lee family mentioned, feel free to add the information back. Otherwise, please do not revert my edits. Propertimes (talk) 00:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I see that you removed the content again, and it was restored [13] with the comment that it appears to be properly verified. I suggest you start a discussion on the article talk page if you still believe there's a problem.

As for my deletion of the content: Because you did not use an edit summary, I believe the best response on my part was to restore the information. --Hipal (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Good cleanup

I agree with your assessment. Nancy is unlikely to make the cut. I also sought references for her and failed. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 01:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit War?

Per your notice on my page regarding Multi-level Marketing. Yes, I've the victim of an edit war. All of my constructive edits get instantly reverted as 'promotional and misleading edits', which they clearly are not, if he had dared to look at the referenced material. [[14]]. Every attempt at discussing it on the talk page is rebuffed. An attempt at mediation on the notice board was summarily closed without discussion. I'm trying to add balancing data from sources already accepted on the page, and from other public sources external to the industry. What can you do to help? DeknMike (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you can't take responsibility for your own editing, I don't see how we can make any headway at all. --Hipal (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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.

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

. Notice has been filed [15] to allow sourced neutral content on the MLM page.DeknMike (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Anatoly Slivko

Hi. Thanks for your edits on the above article, which I have been working on intermittently as of late. There are not many books or reputable webpages pertaining to this article in the English language. If there is anything in my edits which needs a citation or raises your concern, please let me know and I will address it (it gets difficult to identify some references which actually qualify as "reputable" at times). Thanks again Kieronoldham (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Glad I was able to help. I skimmed the rest and didn't notice anything that I could quickly address. Good luck! --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Saturated fat

Please take your ideas about revision of the lead to the talk page. There is nothing controversial in these edits.sbelknap (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

We disagree, and I already did so. --Hipal (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new era

Bishzilla and all her socks wish you a happy new Jurassic era! bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 16:58, 31 December 2022 (UTC).