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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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.
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]
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]
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.
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. SPECIFICOtalk22:30, 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.
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]
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.
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.
"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.
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]
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]
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]
Hello. I had a few questions about your recent edits on the Ed Young page that I am perplexed about.
1. Why did you remove pieces of the bio include ‘writer, speaker, artist’? Is he not an writer/author or speaker?
2. Why was the New York Times Bestselling Author section of the bio removed? You claimed ‘SOAP, COI editing’ but did not attempt to find any sources for what you removed or verify the sources that were currently there, you just removed it all? Seems more detrimental to the page than verifying and editing.
3. Could you explain why "50 Shades of They" by Ed Young, published by Creality Publishing and available on mainstream platforms like Amazon and Barnes & Noble, was removed from the bibliography? Given its relevance to Young's work in relationship counseling and its broad distribution, shouldn't it be included in his Wikipedia bibliography?
4. I’m confused as to why you added back the lifestyle section but removed the part ab Ed Young denying the report. You claimed it was an ‘interview’ in your edit. There were other editors in the talk section who agreed that this source was relevant and good prior to you removing it and it helped bring neutrality to a controversial section of a BLOP.
Once again, you're repeating yourself without apparent understanding of previous discussions and policies. Continue like this, and WP:IDHT might apply.
You are a WP:SPA account working on an article where you're following in the footsteps of many editors with a clear WP:COI. You say you don't have a COI, but your behavior so far is indistinguishable from them.
In light of [7] and [8], you need to rethink what you're actually doing here. I strongly suggest you walk back what you wrote in that second diff.
The lifestyle section is back because the references are good. Removal of properly referenced content is a POV violation. We've been over this already, to the point where it looks like you're not reading what others have to say, nor understanding the relevant policies.
Thank you for letting me know you stand by your comments at RfPP. Given that, I suggest you find other articles to work on, avoiding all areas where editing limits apply. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop reverting. I've responded. Until you can make far greater efforts to follow TALK and AGF, you're at very best wasting time. --Hipal (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now the typical accusations of a "personal vendetta" etc have turned up. We know what they mean: "Lovely work, Hipal!" Bishonen | tålk03:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the help. I wasn't looking forward to a COIN report and the further drama that would likely result. I don't like what drama occurred, but at least it was relatively contained. --Hipal (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin has an anti-BJP and pro-INC bias, and engage in edit war. Their edits are a mix of content removal (sourced), POV pushing, censoring, and misrepresentation of sources. Refer the edit history and talk page of Enforcement Directorate in early April this year, also check the edit warring in Katchatheevu from 31 March where the user tag-teamed with Rzvas for content removal without even providing a valid explanation. The problem in those articles still prevails.--106.206.219.12 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note.
I'd rather not expand my scope of editing at this time into more WP:CT/IPA until a few more broad enforcement actions take place. Be sure to document the problems will on the appropriate article talk pages and noticeboards to help with enforcement. --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a mild case, and aside from sleeping 60 hours straight, no symptoms (thanks Advil + Tylenol!). No antiviral needed, and I'm back to my usual workload. As for the article, I think it's getting much closer to not being able to tell whether a proponent or opponent of FM wrote it, which is a good sign. This is the way of compromise. I appreciate your willingness to accept certain changes, albeit not ALL of them! :) Ocaasit | c22:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interested in specific feedback as to why the recent contributions to Diamandis were reverted – as well as preferences for making meaningful contributions to the page. Chadnjgrant (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9]PROMO - please work in smaller edits with clear edit summaries
Earlier today, you removed a section from Eric Jacobson -- to be clear, I agree with your edits and reasons. I did not write the section. However, I would like to address the talkpage message you left for me afterwards. While I can see that this was a copy/paste "welcome" that I'm sure you've left for others (likely in many cases that warranted it), I'd frankly just like to be clear: I am familiar with the policies you've linked and have done my best to adhere to them in my edits, despite being a "new" editor. I have recently boosted articles, such as Dave Goelz and Bill Prady, with copy-edits/clean-up, formatting, sources, and general expansion. I welcome you to compare their current versions and their states prior to my edits.
I made a mistake, the talkpage message was right before the article edit - but I'm still assuming it was correlated, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Hopefully you'll find that my contributions align with the policies you mentioned. Tvfunhouse (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it important for readers of Sachs' biography to know which political ideas and parties he supports. I agree nevertheless that the reference I used as source is clearly partisan (the Green Party itself) so I propose to reintroduce the text with this reference, which is Sachs' piece endorsing Stein.
Thanks for pointing me to those policies. In BLPPRIMARY, I see that it is ok to use Sachs' own statement: "There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if..." (and I think my reference matches all points). The policy I do see as problematic is that my edit can be considered Recentism. To counter that, I propose expanding the sentence to all of Jeffrey Sachs's public endorsements: Bernie Sanders in 2016, Sanders again in 2020 and now Stein in 2024. What do you think? Hispalois (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. By including it without an independent source, we are promoting Sach's political viewpoints and his support of Stein. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct @Hispalois, it is acceptable, though many BLP patrollers prefer to interpret the last sentence of WP:BLPPRIMARY as meaning you can only use it if you cannot find a detail in independent sources, and only if it is essential to the biography. You don't need to worry as much about that for normal biographies, but this one is more politicised. If you are unsure if an article is politically relevant in the present, look for clues like, in this case, "He has been criticized ..." in the lead or the presence of a multi-subsection "Critical reception" section.
So it is safer to cite this: <ref>{{cite news |date=2024-04-29 |first=Richard |last=Winger |author-link=Richard Winger |title=Jeffrey Sachs Endorses Jill Stein |url=https://ballot-access.org/2024/04/29/jeffrey-sachs-endorses-jill-stein |newspaper=Ballot Access News}}</ref> instead. The more relevant policy is actually WP:BLPSELFPUB, where so long as the article is not based primarily on such sources, it merely has to fulfill the following criteria: (1) it is not unduly self-serving; (2) it does not involve claims about third parties; (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; (4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I have swapped sources and moved the statement to "Personal life". Ivan (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Ivan's solution. The ballot-access.org ref demonstrates no weight or encyclopedic value. It's not even an article, rather just a mention that Sachs made an endorsement. It doesn't even rise to the level of warmed over press release, which would also not be enough. If ballot-access.org doesn't give it more coverage, we certainly shouldn't.
My rule of thumb is to look for content in the references that demonstrates historical importance of the event/topic/etc for the subject of the article where it could be included. --Hipal (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why you undid my edits to Jeffrey Sachs' bio.
Could you please explain why, on Sept 4, you removed my edits on Jeffrey Sachs' bio page. I included links to and a few quotations from articles that Sachs wrote about the war in Ukraine. I figured that the section on the war in Ukraine should, at least, explain Sachs' views!
Can you explain what areas need work, revisions, removal, and so on that cause this issue? Or alternatively change these elements to aid in correcting the page. I have reviewed and edited it multiple times but am struggling to find the specifics that have not been pointed out for correction or clarification. Thank you for your help! Mr-asthmatic (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mr-asthmatic. Thanks for starting a discussion about this.
I've not looked closely at all the references, but my impression at this time is that a total rewrite might be necessary.
I suggest you follow the recommendations I already made on your talk page.
If you insist on continuing to work on the article, I'd start by removing all the self-published sources and associated content. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am intrigued by the instant removal of study buddhism on Berzin's article - it basically removes any sense of what he has been doing in the last ten years or more is gone - do you ever consider re-writes? JarrahTree01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather baffled by your comment given your editing history. It's a BLP article, BLP content, sourced to a self-published reference. The solution is to either find a BLP-quality source that's independent of the subjects, or leave it out. --Hipal (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In turn I find many editors are ready to tag/remove, but never actually edit or improve articles. Fair enough, keep up the good work. JarrahTree02:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my apologies then, I understand your BLP policy issue re self referencing without RS I even remember when the BLP issue almost took WP down , and have no problem with that. As to the rest, ... JarrahTree02:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qaiser-i-Mashriq. I see that Hypnôs has already provided you with good advice on your talk page. I've left you some general information to supplement it.
Unfortunately, I don't see myself having the time to assist with the article directly. The topic is under special editing restrictions (WP:CT/IPA). Please take care with how you continue. --Hipal (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you undid my addition to the AP News article that AP News has a slight left of center bias. I read what you wrote as to why you removed my edit, but I did not understand it. Would you be able to explain further what was wrong about my edit? PotatoKugel (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you violated the sanctions that apply to the article.
I've subsequently modified the content. What do you suggest? Revert to the previous version and make a proposal? I'll do that. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this email finds you well. We noticed you flagged Dan Abrams' page for reading like an advertisement. I work with Dan, and we've been trying to improve the accuracy of the page; currently, the impression is that Dan is first and foremost a TV person when he is first and foremost a media company owner. We're happy to get rid of anything that might be promotional while still being able to update the content to reflect Dan's work. Do you have any suggestions for what we can do to make this happen? We'd love to be in touch with you so that we can make sure that we make changes that work in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Thank you!
You should take time to properly disclose your conflict of interest. Instructions are on User_talk:2020AM2009.
You should be making edit requests on the article talk page rather than directly editing the article per WP:COI.
Wikipedia articles should be written from a historical perspective (see WP:RECENTISM). It may be very difficult for you to find that perspective given your relationship with Abrams.
Generally, articles should be written from references that provide broad context for the subject matter. The Abrams article appears to have been written from press releases and similarly promotional sources that have little context beyond whatever is being announced. --Hipal (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hipal. Just to let you know, many sources cite Carson Wentz as German from Russia. Horvat is about the most Croatian Name you can have. Scherzer seems pretty obviously German. I don’t like all these ethnicity rollbacks. Stating someone’s ethnicity is important Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up with me. Especially with living persons, high-quality references are required. We should not be editing articles based upon guesses or assumptions. Sanctions apply to these articles, so we need to be cautious. I hope you understand. --Hipal (talk) 02:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
