User talk:Hungryhippo112

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Karagory (talk) 02:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Karagory, I've left a response on the noticeboard. I'm open to discussing the credibility of the sources I've used. I'm also open to using other sources for your consideration. I hope we can reach a consensus. Thank you again. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss at Talk:Amy Chua. You can remove this notice from your page. Thanks. Karagory (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Perfect. Thanks Karagory. I'll paste my response in Talk:Amy Chua. I hope it's fine to leave these notices and messages on my page. I'd just like to make sure there is a track record of these messages. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Hungryhippo112. You've been reported for edit warring at WP:AN3. You seem to have broken the WP:3RR rule which is a valid reason to block your account. The simplest way to handle this is for you to undo your re-addition of the disputed material about Amy Chua. If you do so, the next admin who views the noticeboard may go ahead and close the complaint with no action against you. If you are new to Wikipedia you might be unaware that the sources for the Amy Chua complaints are questionable by our standards. It's especially ironic that you [offered to provide us some Daily Mail coverage. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello EdJohnston, thank you for letting me know about my possible violation and account suspension. I've gone ahead and complied to removing any mention of the source by the Daily Mail, which you said you find ironic. However, I've left the edit concerning the New York Post author. In Chua's page itself, there is another edit which used the New York Post as a legitimate form of sourcing. Please refer to "neutral" reporting according to Wikipedia's standard at Expert editors. I appreciate that you've taken the time to explain some of possible actions against me. What exactly are the standards for a "credible" source? I respectfully would like to mention that the reporting done on Chua's page sounds awfully biased to paint her in a favorable light. Again, I gently would like to add that as editors, it is important to remain neutral--and in order to do so, one must cite a variety of opinions. I hope you take what I've said in good faith. All the best. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and remove whatever was cited to the New York Post. Per WP:RSP,
 * There is policy known as WP:BLP which governs whatever we can say about living people. This policy takes precedence over the 'variety of opinions' argument which you present above. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Neutral point of view. The following cited point that one should "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views" is a policy that backs up my "variety of opinion argument" as outlined by Wikipedia.Hungryhippo112 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Following the BLP policy is not optional. I'll proceed with a block if that's the best answer you can give. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, sincerely, thank you again EdJohnston for explaining these to me. I hope we can find a consensus on this that is open to complying with Wikipedia's neutral editing policy. I understand that compliance with BLP policy is not optional, but first, I would like to know more about how I might have violated the BLP policy in my reports on Amy Chua especially in my usage of the source Above the Law (website). This is just so we can be on the same page. I understand now that even the New York Post is seen as subjectively not credible according to you. So, I am open to using other sources. I believe that my edits do, in fact, comply with the BLP policy by presenting a neutral point of view according to Wikipedia's NPOV clause . I'd like to now explicitly cite the Wikipedia clause that a neutral editor must "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." Here, I will paste the Wikipedia explanation of this for your consideration: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that 'According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis' would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." In citing a variety of opinions, as well as Amy Chua's own publicly penned letter, I believe this complies with Wikipedia's neutral editing policy. There is some weight given to opposing viewpoints in doing this. Should there be a misunderstanding, I am willing to talk this through with you. I appreciate your time and effort on discussing this matter.Hungryhippo112 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, sincerely, thank you again EdJohnston for explaining these to me. I hope we can find a consensus on this that is open to complying with Wikipedia's neutral editing policy. I understand that compliance with BLP policy is not optional, but first, I would like to know more about how I might have violated the BLP policy in my reports on Amy Chua especially in my usage of the source Above the Law (website). This is just so we can be on the same page. I understand now that even the New York Post is seen as subjectively not credible according to you. So, I am open to using other sources. I believe that my edits do, in fact, comply with the BLP policy by presenting a neutral point of view according to Wikipedia's NPOV clause . I'd like to now explicitly cite the Wikipedia clause that a neutral editor must "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views." Here, I will paste the Wikipedia explanation of this for your consideration: "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that 'According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis' would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field." In citing a variety of opinions, as well as Amy Chua's own publicly penned letter, I believe this complies with Wikipedia's neutral editing policy. There is some weight given to opposing viewpoints in doing this. Should there be a misunderstanding, I am willing to talk this through with you. I appreciate your time and effort on discussing this matter.Hungryhippo112 (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring and violation of WP:BLP at Amy Chua
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Belle Knox. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

March 2022
Hello, I'm Melecie. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vietnamese Americans without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. melecie  t  - 08:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Filipino Americans. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mark Redondo Villegas


A tag has been placed on Mark Redondo Villegas, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement of https://lsa.umich.edu/ncid/people/diversity-scholars-directory/mark-villegas.html. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
 * It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jennifer O. Manilay for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jennifer O. Manilay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jennifer O. Manilay 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. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Your edit to Belle Knox has been reverted again. Restoring unreliably sourced content, this time without any citations at all, is not an improvement. Please do not restore without WP:RELIABLE references. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Important notice: biographies of living persons
--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Despite the notice above (and many many warnings on this page) you continue to add information to biography articles that is not supported by reliable sources. If this continues, you will very likely find yourself blocked from editing BLPs altogether.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Karagory (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Block notice
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for long-term edit warring to restore the same disputed content to BLPs despite warnings and a previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If this continues, I expect the next block to be indefinite..-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jia Tolentino, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Remember that the introduction mentions only the nationality of the subject, not their ethnicity. —C.Fred (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)