User talk:Hipal

Hi Hipal. While I could agree with you about the entire Philanthropy section I didn't wan't to remove it not to incite pointless arguments, I WILL return a miscarriage part because it's not TRIVIA, for god's sake! Anyone who followed the show knows about it.

Because of it Eliza couldn't direct episode 7 of S7, and Bob had a mental breakdown and asked for a break from filming. We know how it ended, right? With a total crash of the show. I restored Morley's Personal life AS it was, and please don't touch it anymore because you never had before. Thank you. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I was in the process of commenting on your own talk page.

I didn't remove the content on her miscarriage. Looking over the reference: I'm not finding any discussion about the publisher, telltaletv.com. The author is free-lance, which could indicate that the specific reference should not be used. My impression of the publisher from what information they provide about themselves is that it's of questionable quality in general, and especially for BLP information. I'm not going to remove it, but wouldn't argue of it to be restored if it was disputed.

Would it help to go over the references from the Philanthropy section? --Hipal (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Text was not mine, but knowing telltaletv.com, they are deleting their texts if author is free-lancer. But since I followed Unity Days 2020 on Twitter and Instagram, I CAN confirm that what Eliza and Bob said on the panels and what was written on telltaletv.com is true.

As for Philanthropy section, I would only leave BC Children's Hospital Benefit soccer match in Vancouver, but we need some link with Bob if it's possible.

I'll look around a bit to see if there's still something out there. But I can't promise you it'll be today. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

The soccer match was referenced to (Williams, Rob (7 September 2017). "Archie from Riverdale to play in charity soccer match at BC Place". Daily Hive. Archived from the original on 25 April 2018. Retrieved 25 April 2018.), and simply lists him as a participant. Such a brief mention wouldn't be due any mention. The reference is a local public announcement, which isn't due mention even if there were more about Morley in it. --Hipal (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, except f*cking JustJared, still haven't found a site that directly mentions Bob or even has his picture on.

One more thing about Philanthropy: why does no one mention Koh Tao Kids and Little Hearts Learning?! Bob was working for both Koh Tao Kids and Little Hearts Learning. And if you go to Eliza's site, you will notice there is no Philanthropy at all? And she worked in KTP for four years, and then transferred to the LHL.

Well, when they got married some assholes (mostly clxa fans) started writing crap how Eliza and Bob stole the money from them even though it was proven as bullshit. Kizo2703 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, if you want to restart Philanthropy:

In September 2017 and 2018, Morley joined fellow The 100 castmates to participate in the BC Children's Hospital Benefit soccer matches in Vancouver, Canada.

^[1]

^[2]

^[3]

I know BC Children’s Hospital had it on their site, but since it's been 8 years, they cleaned up their servers too.

Grounders Source is The 100 fan site. I don't have to like Evelyn Ulrich, but she never proved to be unreliable.

And right now, her site is the only one we have that directly mentions Bob Morley and British Columbia Children's Hospital charity soccer matches.

You have three links now. The first two are for 2017, and the third is for 2018. Decide for yourself.

As for the other notes and links about T-shirts, it wasn't mine and really don't know should it be in Wikipedia at all. After all, it was just a load of crap. Do as you wish with it. I just don't

want it to start another fan war. Kizo2703 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

The first is no different from the Daily Hive.

The second and third are from the same publisher, a blog that is not reliable.

You should familiarize yourself with WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. --Hipal (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of what they are and I'm familiarized with WP:RS and WP:BLPRS. Unfortunately, no one published anything about it on WP:LATIMES or WP:PEOPLEMAG. It's an obvious fan site and the only one left. As I said, do as you wish.

I'm sorry, but I'm at work and don't have more time for you right now. Kizo2703 (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Islam21c is no longer a poor source; I have collected many references to create an article.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

You should have started a discussion on the article talk page. I'll do so. --Hipal (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. You have new messages at JeffSpaceman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JeffSpaceman (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean-up of Caeryrodar's edits. I was halfway through their edits (moving misplaced "refs" to the external links section) before I noticed that every single one was to an article written by Ana Vidal and that Caeryrodar had written her article as well. I wavered on whether their efforts were spam or useful, and was still going back and forth on the question in my mind when I saw that you'd made a call. Despite my initial indecisiveness, I think you're right. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Following your third opinion at Dorset Police the other editor has refused to engage on the talk page and has simply reinstated the disputed material with no explanation. Please can you advise me on where to go next? Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

There are behavioral issues that might need to be addressed, especially if there are more copyright problems in the disputed content. The edit warring over years and whatever the relationship with the AlikhanNalini (talk · contribs) account might be are troubling.

As far as the content dispute, I'd take it to WP:BLPN, though you might want to look through WP:DR to see if there's an alternative you prefer.

I have left a message with user Nthep, the last admin to address the copyright problems there. --Hipal (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will wait to see what Nthep does and then consider either of the two routes that you suggested. Many thanks for the speedy response. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

OK, so that was quick and easy. I'll take it to BLPN as you advised. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Done - Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Dorset_Police. I have mentioned you in the report as the one who gave the third opinion. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Hipal reported by User:Cambial Yellowing (Result: ). Thank you. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Please remember to preserve appropriate content. Thank you. Selbsportrait (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As you are aware by now, I'm much more concerned with situations where we should apply WP:DON'T PRESERVE, Take special care with biographies of living people, especially when handling unsourced or poorly sourced claims about the subject. Editors working on such articles need to know and understand the extra restrictions that are laid out at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Note also WP:CHOICE, Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. --Hipal (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed your response per the instructions at the top. --Hipal (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Please remove that exchange in its entirety. Selbsportrait (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I request the same. Thanks.Deamonpen (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

BLP is clear, as is DON'T_PRESERVE. Policy-based consensus is a requirement. If you think a case can be made for some content to be included, make it, and do so on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

DON'T PRESERVE only applies to unsupported and contentious material.

One can't say anything about consensus until one asks for it. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with your reading of the quote above. --Hipal (talk) 01:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed your response per the instructions at the top. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Selbsportrait, I've removed multiple comments of yours now. Please take more care to follow Wikipedia's behavioral policies and guidelines. --Hipal (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Hipal. I was working on something else and came across a discussion you had with another editor regarding the Joey Chestnut article. It made me realize that you have added {{Ref expand}} to multiple articles rather than just the one. I was wondering if you would review your recent edits and try to adjust the Ref expand template from the top of articles you recently added it to, down to the references section. The reason I am asking this is because of the documentation for the template saying that it is usually best in the references section due to being a cleanup tag. (Additionally, I should mention that your edit notice seems to not be fully compatible with WP:REPLYTOOL as it leaves a blank space where the user's name should appear.) Thank you for your time, Super Goku V (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out.

Is the tag that big of a problem? I'm unlikely to have time to do it soon. My plan was to just try to remember to do it as I go forward with ones I come across and add.

I've no idea what to do regarding REPLYTOOL, and my editnotice precedes it. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems frowned upon, but it can be fixed as it is encountered. As for your editnotice, if there is a way to detect when a user is using the reply function, then it could be updated to remove the blank space that appears in the text. But, I am not sure if that is possible right now. For the moment, it will be a bit broken for users using the reply tool. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I made a quick attempt to move the templates I've added this year.

Maybe I can get help at the REPLYTOOL talk page. --Hipal (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha and thank you. Also, to be clear, the edit notice only appeared for me when created a new topic and was thus the only bugged version I saw. "Welcome, , to the Wikipedia user discussion page for Hipal." Hopefully someone there has some experience with making edit notices compatible. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you not think it notably they are being used in 8 public school classrooms? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for following up with me.

My concern was over the change in wording to the first sentence of the lede without explanation.

I'm not sure about the schools. Looking over the refs, I think it best to add the ref and more details from it to the article body, then introduce schools to the lede. I'll go ahead and restore the lede sentence. --Hipal (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright that makes sense.

Re the other change to the lede I could've clarified further. "Political, economic, and sociological topics" seems vague and unspecific so I said they covered topics including politics, economics, history, philosophy, and civics. 152.3.43.65 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In the process, you de-emphasized what they're probably most notable for.--Hipal (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

what do you mean SonsyEpicMap (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Promoting conservatism, obviously. You replaced it by "from an American conservative perspective" and moved it to the end of the sentence as if it were just an afterthought. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. --Hipal (talk) 15:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal,

I saw you reverted stephen harper as a noted presenter on the PragerU page, while keeping people like Michelle Malkin, as notable presenters. Surely the prime minister of Canada of 12 years is more notable than a former Fox News presenter? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I didn't look for problems with the existing content.

This isn't about any general notability of anyone. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

So why did you revert my addition of Stephen Harper to the notable presenters section? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

For the reasons I gave. Is there something about my explanation that's unclear? --Hipal (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes you said "seems UNDUE as ref'd". I'm not sure exactly what that means but what you did was revert the change of stephen harper in notable presenters so presumably you thought he wasn't a notable presenter and I don't know how the PM of canada is not a notable presenter SonsyEpicMap (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It's WP:UNDUE. Again, this has nothing to do with what you personally think is notable about a presenter. --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I just don't understand how it's undue.

There's a section for notable presenters, I think it is pretty universally acknowledged, not by me but by the world, that Stephen Harper is more notable than some of the minor political commentators who are already acknowledged. So when you say it's undue, meaning a minority view, are you arguing that I'm the only one who thinks Stephen Harper is a notable presenter? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

There's a section for notable presenters... No there is not, at least not in the sense that you repeat.

I'm saying that a person's general notability is irrelevant and it's a POV violation to choose content based upon such criteria. --Hipal (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay then please explain to me what are the criteria are for selecting these people: "Some prominent video presenters have included Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, Nigel Farage, Charles Krauthammer, Michelle Malkin, Bret Stephens and George Will." Would you prefer if I put on the talk page asking if Stephen Harper belongs among them? SonsyEpicMap (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Look at the references being used and compare them to the Harper reference. The article should be written around what's important to the understanding of PragerU. See WP:NOT as well, which comes into play with the Harper reference. --Hipal (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal,

Thank you for patrolling my latest changes in the Shadow banning article and addressing the lack of sources.

I would say that the deletion without warning was a bit drastic. Yet, lack of sources is a clear Wikipedia policy violation.

I suspect that part of the reason why you took this action was because of my basic user profile (bit better by now) and my short editing history.

I have tried to improve the contribution I wrote. And I have published it again, with changes.

Like the first edition of my text, they are two new sections:

1. Drawbacks: no changes, apart from adding 1 source reference and the {{In_use_section}} and {{Citation_needed}} templates.
2. Legality: I have considerably extended the section and added 10 source references (papers, official gazettes, universities and law experts' groups).

I have found a few sources that directly address the Drawbacks section. But unlike the Legality section these sources are a bit more light-hearted:

• Shadow Banning: The Invisible Moderation Tactic Explained - SaveDelete
• Understanding Shadow Ban: what it is and how to prevent it - Kontentino

The reason for the lower quality of these sources being that this information is mostly explanatory, relatively unimportant, and kind of obvious. Yet, it was missing in the article.

The trade-off of having the Drawbacks section with these sources outweighs the due correctness in sources and not having this information at all.

If you are happy with these sources I will add them to the section and remove citation templates.

Suggestions are welcome.

Cheers,

AxeEffectPoweredByChuckNorris (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I suggest you focus on content and policy. I removed it because of the lack of references, as I indicated. --Hipal (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Right, I did not ask for clarification, since the reason was obvious, and I accepted it.

I have asked you for your acceptability of the sources that I am proposing now.

I am asking you about this to get consensus and avoid having the section reverted again.

I understand then by your response that your are OK with the 2 sources I want to add? Please read my initial message where I explain these sources and why I asking now. AxeEffectPoweredByChuckNorris (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. It would be best to ask for review of the new references on the article talk page, but I'll try review them soon. --Hipal (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I see you rolled back my edits on Internet geolocation. "appears to be more LLM content - poor and outright unreliable sources despite assertions otherwise in edit summaries".

As I mentioned inside the discussion page, and here and here, all the content is original and NOT AI/LLM created. I literally wrote it word by word, not once, but at least 3 times. I really don't know what else to do, it's 100% human content, I worked personally in this industry for more than 10 years. When it comes to sources, could you please point out which ones are poor/outright? Several sources are from universities, international research centers/entities, CNN, W3, Mozilla foundation, Apple, Google/Android, Oxford publication, Microsoft. Should I remove the others, coming from some kind of "commercial sites", even if they're reliable? Really, it hurts my eyes to see that page in the current situation, it's just incomplete and even wrong in some aspects. I'd love to help but it's been 3 weeks I've been trying to improve it and getting rolled back over and over. Please, let me know how could I fix the issues you mentioned and I'll make sure to work on the page again to improve it. --Dylan--86 (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. It just looks far to close to what I've seen from LLMs, and the choice of references seems indiscriminate with respect to Wikipedia's content policies.

See WP:RS and WP:IS for some direction on the choice of references.

Refer to WP:RSP and WP:RSN if you're unsure about the reliability of a source.

I have not looked at the previous state of the article. I ran across your edits because of the use of thefamouspeople.com. After skimming the rest of your edits and others' concerns, I agreed that the problems had not been addressed.

Best to work slowly, following the suggestions on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I read and took notes, I'm slowly working on the article again, improving the sources! Thanks --Dylan--86 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies that I don't have the time to respond quickly to your work. --Hipal (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Given the subsequent edits, a new approach is needed. --Hipal (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond. Czarking0 (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD! As you may have seen in my previous message, I am conducting a survey. Several editors have responded already and I do not want their hard work to go to waste. If you could take a few moments to make your voice hear please check this survey.

Don't worry I won't send you another reminder.Czarking0 (talk) 02:49, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted my edits to the Vani Hari page, saying that the sources were unreliable. At least two of them were from secondary sources, related to her collaboration with Mark Hyman and others. And one of them linked to her quote about the flu vaccine. Can you clarify which sources you felt weren’t reliable, and what types of sources would be acceptable for this content? Farwest1 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

One was a Forbes article, another a Vox Media article, and a third from Drovers Magazine, an agriculture publication. These seem to me to be legitimate secondary sources. Farwest1 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

The Vox ref is used elsewhere in the article, but alone I don't see any of the information is WP:DUE in the WP:LEDE.

The rest are poor if not unreliable WP:FORBESCON. The Drovers ref looks very poor, an opinion piece. --Hipal (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You have deleted a long-standing statement on the Wikipedia article concerning this sociologist in a way that leaves the paragraph devoid of content, and the only reasons given are totally disconnected with the removal. The sentence you have removed is a direct quote from the subject of the article, explaining his position and values. You have deleted it claiming that it is a soapbox statement, expressing point of view, and inappropriate to BLP. Yet it is a direct quote form the subject of the article, indicated as such, with no editorializing. It seems that you went through the article quickly, deleting it without noticing the reference or the source of the quote. Please take another look, and if you still want to prserve your deletion, give your reasons on the talk page - the reasons given when you did the edit seem largely irrelevant. Certainly including the subject's own description of his views cannot be inappropriate for BLP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Gollum (talk • contribs) 22:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm ignoring your assumptions about what I may have done. Please WP:FOC.

I'll add to what I've already written that it fails WP:LEDE.

The WP:ONUS is on those seeking inclusion, especially so in a BLP article. --Hipal (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

None of our acronyms address the substance of the concerns. It would be helpful if you could address the substantive concerns that I have raised. Bob Gollum (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. If you're not going to respect the policies identified, I'm wasting my time responding. --Hipal (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

That is an unfair and belligerent comment, and inappropriate to wikipedia, which operates on a consensus model. The point was that the policies were fully respected, and accordingly did not justify your deletion of substance from the article.

The policies are important and valuable, but they had nothing to do with what we were discussing. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I won't repeat what I last wrote, but it's all that needs saying still. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Intead of #3, one could reference https://ladanza.com/duchesne.htm#english Serrano is a retired professor of Puerto Rican studies who has written extensively on Puerto Rico in general and Puerto Rican jazz in particular: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Basilio-Serrano, including several books on the subject of Puerto Rican jazz - Puerto Rican Pioneers in Jazz, 1900–1939: Bomba Beats to Latin Jazz; Juan Tizol - His Caravan Through American Life and Culture; Puerto Rican Women from the Jazz Age: Stories of Success.

The first two references, from Centro Journal and the Latin Jazz Network, both by Serrano confirm that the musician is the grandfather of the subject of the article. One can multiply references to the musician and his life, and I can certainly add more if you think that would be helpful. Being mentioned on wikipedia cannot be the requirement; otherwise wikipedia would never expand. -Bob Gollum Bob Gollum (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you added something similar on the article talk page. I'll respond there so others can easily see and participate. --Hipal (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to contribute to this discussion further, reading User:WLU/Generic_sandbox and WP:CIR might help. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I will contribute more substantively in the near future. I do want to hear what you have to say specifically, but in the meantime would appreciate it if you don't just send references to generic wiki pages; it really doesn't help any. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't agree to that at all. Wikipedia is a big place, and there's a great deal of information available to help and guide for just about any situation. I count on it, and do not waste my time recreating what's already available to work from. --Hipal (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Help:Academic maybe. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to confirm the concern I expressed in the last comment that you deleted. Bob Gollum (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm trying to provide you with information that will help you become a better Wikipedia editor. While I may delete comments per the instructions at the top, I still try to address any concern that might help improve this encyclopedia. --Hipal (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous assistance, but it is really not necessary. Bob Gollum (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Andy Gross article – Declined COI request and removed third opinion. Thank you. Somonelikeyou (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello — just letting you know that I’ve opened a discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard regarding the Talk:Andy Gross page for neutral review. Thank you. Somonelikeyou (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The page Daus Mendoza has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The page Leah Halton has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The page Louie Castro (influencer) has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

RSN says: In a 2022 RfC, editors found no consensus on the reliability of AllSides as a whole . . . There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Is it your view that in this specific case they're unreliable?

Thanks! Cloudjpk (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

A few points:

I've been following the treatment of AllSides prior to the early RSN discussions. When it's not removed as unreliable, it's removed as UNDUE.

Sources that rely on poor sources are poor, and this is one.

My interpretation of the description for AllSides' blog section is that it's unreliable for our purposes. --Hipal (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I accept that. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take it to RSN again if I catch more questionable ones or more are disputed. Right not there's only the one in Briahna Joy Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG, there are somewhat narrow circumstances in which it is appropriate to simply remove talk page comments; in general off-topic comments are either {{hat}}ted or {{rpa}}ed where appropriate. I have never heard that individual comments in an ongoing discussion must each, themselves, meet the entirety of the talk page guidelines. jp×g🗯️ 19:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with what you've done twice now and your rationale, even if you completely ignored all that's been happening on that talk page. --Hipal (talk) 19:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

There was about a blissful 30 minute period there where I'd completely forgotten who Dan Crenshaw was. Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I look forward to forgetting about him too. --Hipal (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have no idea who Dan is! Walter Ego 16:13, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Hipal, sorry to bother you again, but I'd like to resolve this issue for good, if possible. Ever since the POV tag on the Jonathan Swan article was placed, quite a few changes have been made. See what you think. I've tried in vain to solicit the advice of other editors, and so I'm left with little choice. Do your concerns still stand? If not, I will try to guide the article through peer review. Thanks. DannyRogers800 (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Hipal, I just saw the POV tag you placed at List of sports figures considered the greatest and was just wondering if there was anything that I could do to get that tag removed to improve the article. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey Hipal, can you point out any specific sourcing in the article that is still no good? I’ve already deleted many. Just trying to get an idea of which sources should further be deleted from the article. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Clear inclusion criteria should be identified on the talk page as such. --Hipal (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added inclusion criteria to the talk page. Is there anything else that would need to be done? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you should give others time to review the discussion and edits. --Hipal (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

No problem, I’ll wait and see if I hear back. If there’s no objections after a while then we can remove the tag. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal! I just wanted to check in on the ongoing Humana request you are reviewing to see if the feedback I left is helpful and if you need any more assistance. Thanks! E Humana (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

The page Mountaineering in Kazakhstan has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:51, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal! I'm one of the 6 guys who worked on the page Mountaineering in Kazakhstan, I wanted to ask you which part were specifically problematic for you, as our page got rated B-class before, so that we can improve our work. Hope to see you in our talk page to discuss how to improve our article in order to be published. Cincipo20 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the time to review the article anytime soon.

Who gave it a B-rating? That seems a mistake, misleading you to think it was in good shape.

Basically, I found the article because of it's use of unreliable sources. I noticed that the strange use of "XX century" in the lede, that much of the article was highly promotional in nature, and that the editor that moved it to article space (@Monkeysmashingkeyboards:) is a new editor with little experience and one block already. That was enough for me to see that this was a premature move to article space. --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions in order to improve the page? Because me and my group would like to know how to make it better and understand where you found it too promotional, so that we can have a look on that and improve it.

Thanks a lot. Cincipo20 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I'd start with the basics:

Review the references. Remove/replace all those that are poor or unreliable. Make sure all non-independent sources are used properly to avoid WP:POV and WP:NOT problems.

Ask for help from relevant WikiProjects or venues listed at Wikipedia:Questions. --Hipal (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, hope you are doing well. You reverted all of my edits stating that "issues not addressed - please discuss on talk page", so here I am. I am not exactly sure why the edits were reverted. Could you please let me know if you noticed any specific issues with the edits I made? I have taken care to ensure that everything I added is neutral and supported by reliable, secondary sources. If there is anything in particular that still concerns you, I would really appreciate it if you could point it out. I will be happy to review and address it. Skyler Quinn2 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article talk page.

A review of WP:NOT and WP:NEWSORGINDIA will be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I want to clarify that my edits were routine improvements. I mostly expanded existing content using reliable, independent sources and made general fixes, including adding citation-needed tags to unsourced material, placing references in the correct order, and trimming subjective or promotional language. I did not remove or edit any critical, sensitive, or controversial material that could potentially cause disagreement, which is the type of content that would require talk-page discussion for a community consensus; all my edits are routine content improvements. I checked NEWSORGINDIA and have avoided sources that fall under that guideline. I have also read WP:NOT; my edits do not violate it. However, I have tightened the content further to remove any potential concerns. If you notice any issues with specific parts, please feel free to copyedit. I am happy to collaborate to ensure the article meets Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Skyler Quinn2 (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the review on Joe Keery article. But, now we have a problem, that we literally do not have a source which state Keery's birthday on April 24, 1992.

What I did on Keery article especially the Famous Birthday source, I simply search the first source which state the birthday on oldest revision history of the page (which got deleted cause got blacklisted). Then, I add 2 more sources from magazine and press to support the poor source. The reason I still put the Famous Birthday source is simply for historical purpose--first ever source state Keery birthday on April 24, 1992--which other sources followed by. More detailed reason, you can find it on MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#specific link about Joe Keery on famousbirthdays.com.

Ok, I may went overboard with Costa Rica, but I think we should make an exception for the birthday date, cause Keery himself stated Wikipedia name on the interview. I also believed this could be great example for mantaining RS in the future, that Wikipedia is still growing which always learn from their past slip, not just covered it up and act like we're not responsible for the Keery's birthday date inaccuracy until now. EdhyRa (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I assumed that such a glaring mistake hadn't been made previously. Thanks for pointing it out. --Hipal (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hipal, I hope you are enjoying life.

So, StefenTower has been giving me a bit of guidance. He has been editing Wikipedia for 20 years so he is a veteran like you. Also Vermont okayed some of the citations I used, so I removed the others (like you suggested).

So I am asking, How am I celebrating an article today only for you to tell me I have COI, a spam, a paid editor, etc even without me taking part in any of these?

How come you can’t guide me gently instead of making me feel like I am guilty of things I know nothing about?

How come there are worse articles on Wikipedia but you make me feel like I don’t belong here because I used certain citations?

How come you painted me bad like you tried to talk to me and I didn’t respond or was not compliant?

I have never claimed to be a perfect editor but I promise you that I have no COI nor am I a paid editor. Please let me build a good reputation here too. Let me blossom. Thanks.

Torchpawn (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've been led into a position where you're trying to justify what you did at Charles & Alyssa Forever.

WP:CIR. --Hipal (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello Hipal: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

You were undyingly patient with me throughout my work on Jonathan Swan, which is now a good article. I've learnt and hopefully matured from this experience. I wish you happy holidays and a pleasant year. DannyRogers800 (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for focusing on the positives after all the difficult work. Apologies for being the cause of many of the difficulties. --Hipal (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hipal,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year Hipal! I hope you are doing something enjoyable. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, I've blocked the temporary account and some underlying IPs for the personal attacks against you at Emma Roberts. If they return within the next week or so, let me know and I can protect the page as well. Thanks for your work and happy new year! — Wug·a·po·des 05:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. --Hipal (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! As mentioned before, I plan on checking in intermittently and wanted to let you know I provided some answers to the questions you had on the Humana Talk page. Let me know if you need any more assistance. Thanks! E Humana (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, thank you for your work.

I noticed that you removed the chapter listing personalities who have given interviews to Voice of Europe. This topic and most of the individuals involved is well covered by mainstream and investigative media. I would like to rework it in clean way so that it is acceptable. I agree that the original introductory text was not well formulated, nor was the text following the list (it was there before my additions).

I will introduce it shortly and neutrally and limit the sources to 1-2 reliable media sources + one primary source for verification per person. Do you recommend adding it as a table? Will it be OK like this or do you not recommend adding it there at all?

Thank you very much for feedback. IronLiberty (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I had already started a discussion on the article talk page about it. Basically, I think such a list is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia per BLP, NOT, and POV. Please join the discussion there. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate you removing that Epstein files spam from multiple BLPs. Others may disagree, but I for one happen to agree that there is little evidence suggesting it meets BLP, POV, NOTNEWS, and other content policies. Once again, thank you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the message. I think that sufficient good sources are now available that it looks a bit suspicious, to put it mildly, if we mention nothing and keep removing well-sourced material. The spike in interest is very apparent. That said, I won't be contributing any further, but my text is ready to be reinstated as and when. Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Is Sneako not far-right because of his association with far-right figures and holds far-right views? Firekong1 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

BLP-quality references are required. WP:BLP is very clear. --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Can there at least be mentions of his association with far-right figures and groups? It has been documented. Firekong1 (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

If you can find some sources that you think might meet BLP requirements (checking at WP:RSP could help), then take them to the article talk page. --Hipal (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course. He has associated with Nick Fuentes and Myron Gaines, both of whom have recorded far right leanings. Firekong1 (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hipal. I didn't get a chance before the post got archived to say thanks for helping out with Chris Hohn introduction. I do think there are some issues with the content itself and sources that are listed as unreliable or questionable on WP:RS/PS, so I've posted a request about that on the Talk page. Cheers 2012duke21 (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

A harass2 notification from ~2026-11223-58 (talk · contribs) removed as a TALK and AGF violation.

TALK states, User talk pages must serve their primary purpose, which is to make communication and collaboration among editors easier. Editors who refuse to use their talk page for these purposes are violating the spirit of the talk page guidelines, and are not acting collaboratively. --Hipal (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2026 (UTC)