User talk:Mx. Granger/Archives/2017

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mx. Granger. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Scare-line

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Scare-line. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary as a reference

Hello Mx. Granger,

Thank you for your edits, removing references to Wiktionary from Eremophila, Melaleuca and possibly some other plant species pages. I appreciate your adding "not a reliable source". You are right, of course, but perhaps an unreliable source is better than "no source". I have already gone back over several hundred pages that I have written using Wiktionary as the etymological reference, and have changed the citation to Roland Brown. In nearly every case, it was not necessary to change the etymology - Brown and Wikipedia agreed. I will get to the remainder in due course. Perhaps you might help to improve Wikipedia and increase my chance of adding new plant species pages by changing the reference to Roland Brown rather than just deleting that to Wikitionary? It's available here.

Many thanks in anticipation - and a very prosperous and productive year to you. Gderrin (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will keep the Roland Brown source in mind. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your fix to Melaleuca lanceolata. I've checked all the melaleucas from M. acacioides to M. exuvia but the rest, and many eremophilas need to be corrected. Any help would be much appreciated (especially if they were done in affabecklauda. Gderrin (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC) ( a Strine)

Reference errors on 28 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ronaldinho page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Hello, I'm TheBD2000. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Riot 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 the 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. —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Persian people

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Persian people. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

RE Breitbart

With all due respect, the discussions about Breitbart (see [1], [2]) at ANI did not lead to any conclusive determination, it seems to me (after reading the lengthy colloquies), so I don't see how you conclude that it is inherently an unreliable source. Yours. Quis separabit? 03:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the 2015 discussion you linked demonstrates consensus that Breitbart is generally not a reliable source. Of course, reliability depends on the circumstances, and there are some situations where Breitbart is reliable, such as when Breitbart is being used as a primary source for a reporter's opinion (as several editors pointed out in the 2014 discussion). But for straightforward statements of fact, it is generally not reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@[e-mail]: Pinging to make sure you see that I've replied. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sirius

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sirius. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Moved to Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva

 – —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

RE:WPNOTBROKEN

Honestly, what is the big deal?? Redirects, in my opinion, are a pain in the ass. How on Earth is my piping them not helping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grouches101 (talk • contribs)

@Grouches101: Reasons are given at WP:NOTBROKEN. If you disagree with the guideline, you can discuss changing it at Wikipedia talk:Redirect, but until you get consensus to change it, please follow it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. --Langholz8 (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you may be confused—I didn't edit your userpage, I just left a message on your user talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for this, I was involved in that edit because my browser sometimes has issues and displays the wrong title for some reason. However, I immediately (attempted to at least) revert when I saw my mistake. Again, apologies, I will attempt to be more careful next time. Penskins (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Appalachian English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Appalachian English. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reliable source?

I'm glad we can agree on my edits in Protests against Donald Trump, but may I ask why The Sun isn't a reliable source? TheBD2000 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

In past WP:RSN discussions, there seems to be consensus that The Sun is not reliable, or at best only reliable for quotes and straightforward, specific statements of fact, not for any kind of analysis or generalization. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

TheBD2000 I suspect that is more of the same, see Talk:Alfredo_Beltrán_Leyva. Endercase (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Panini

Actually, it is 100% incorrect, but I'm done trying to make Wikipedia a more intelligent place, thanks to tyrants like you. A "vote" which was not exposed to the general public in any substantive way (I never received an invitation to offer my opinion) is hardly a way to decide the correctness of something, particularly when most poorly educated people (i.e., the average American) who voted don't know the first thing about correct spelling and usage. If we're going to let restaurants who incorrectly use the word "panini" influence "correctness", then we can also expect to see the ultimate disappearance of the apostrophe denoting a possessive, thanks to those same restaurants and other stores (e.g., Quiznos, Tim Hortons) that have deliberately and incorrectly removed it from their names. In this case, the words "panino" and "panini" are loanwords from Italian ... end of story.[1] Perpetuating errors based on an opinion shared by a handful of turbo-geeks is hardly the way an encyclopedia should be developed. I personally value encyclopedias for correctness and have always striven to add such to Wikipedia when I see it absent, which is EXACTLY what I did. But, I will leave the continued presence of the error on your hands and you can sleep well, armed with the knowledge that you are as uninformed as the others who voted against correctness. You probably voted for Trump as well. Well done! Smratguy (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

See Chilling Effects. Endercase (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

1. "The 10 Best Panini in America". The Daily Meal. Tronc, Inc. Retrieved 5 March 2017.

Please comment on Talk:Tiffany

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tiffany. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Irwin Creek Greenway

Beautiful photo of Irwin Creek Greenway. Thank you! I wrote the original article.--Toploftical (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No problem! —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Busby's Bore

while a water well is usual for a well that is bored down, this is a tunnel bored across ... Boring (manufacturing) ... ? Dave Rave (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
a tunnel that has been bored for moving water, not a well. Dave Rave (talk)

I've reverted my edit—please feel free to edit the link to go to whichever target you think is most appropriate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking tunnel|bore would be better than any of the others on the disam page Dave Rave (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of all-female bands

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of all-female bands. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Searching missionaries China

I have always been told that my grandmother's mother and her three sisters were missionaries in China, but can't find any information on them. The only timing I have is that they were there to welcome Pearl Buck's family. And that at least two of them were alive into my toddler years (early 1950's). I have seen their name as Sloan and as Sloane. Four sisters including Gertrude, Ethel, and Lizzie (Elizabeth?). I was wondering if you had come across this name? I do remember years ago we found a diary and were disappointed to read about visiting missionaries, church services and baptisms, we were hoping to find information about their life in China. But now we are not sure where that diary is. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I know you have other things to do with your time, but as I get older I'd like to leave my grandsons some of the family history rather than family legend. Khadija Elizabeth Ross Kaydeej (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I know very little about missionaries in China, so I can't help. You may be able to find someone more knowledgeable if you post at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for all your hard work maintaining the site. (Particularly against the enthusiastic Tims!) Greg (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Translation. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Alex Jones is not a fake News Website. Snopes is just as fake while posing as a site of authority.

Granted Infowars is biased however, CNN is just as biased. The Trump election upset was due to mainstream media ignoring the sentiments of the American populace, a majority of which have red state values. You can not blame this Trump election upset on Infowars.com or Russian propaganda. Also, Snopes has published many fake stories. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-facts-that-Snopes-com-got-wrong-i-e-something-they-claimed-to-be-false-yet-it-was-proven-true-or-viceversa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninmd (talk • contribs) 14:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

“Snopes’ main political fact-checker is a writer named Kim Lacapria. Before writing for Snopes, Lacapria wrote for Inquisitr, a blog that — oddly enough — is known for publishing fake quotes and even downright hoaxes as much as anything else.” Fact Checking Snopes’ Kim LaCapria [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninmd (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

What is behind Snopes’ selfish motivation? A simple review of their “fact-checking” reveals a strong tendency to explain away criticisms towards liberal politicians and public figures while giving conservatives the hatchet job. Religious stories and issues are similarly shown no mercy. With the “main-stream” media quickly losing all credibility with their fawning treatment of President Obama, Snopes is being singled out, along with MSNBC and others, as being particularly biased and agenda-motivated.

[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roninmd (talk • contribs)

References

1. http://politicianreviews.com/review/kim-lacapria-and-snopes-caught-lying-about-barry-bush/
2. https://therionorteline.com/2013/08/16/snopes-got-snoped/

If you have reliable sources for these claims, you're welcome to bring them up at Talk:List of fake news websites. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Katherine Langford

Katherine Langford's birthday is the 29th of April as it says on her instagram story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.230.46 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If the image is already licensed by Wikimedia Commons on another article relating to the same subject, why can it not be used here? Stormy clouds (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The image is not on Wikimedia Commons and it has not been released under a free license as far as I know. Its use in Hannah Baker is permitted by WP:NFCC, Wikipedia's policy on the use of non-free content. Its use in Katherine Langford is not permitted by this policy, because it fails criterion #1 (No free equivalent). A freely licensed photo for use in the article Katherine Langford could be created if a Wikipedia editor takes a picture of Langford at some public appearance, so use of the non-free file in that article is not permitted—see WP:NFC#UUI. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Now I get it. Thank you Stormy clouds (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abraham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abraham. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing birthdays

You asked me to source that Jazz Jennings' birthday was on October sixth. In all of my experience with Wikipedia, both reading and editing articles, I have never once been asked to source a birthday? As well as the fact that my source is the fact that she tweeted that it was her birthday on October sixth. How do I source that, considering that twitter usually isn't reliable? (Of course, it is in this case, seeing as she posted it herself) My dearest comma laurens (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! It's true that most people don't bother challenging an unsourced birthday, but I tend to be a stickler for that, especially in cases like these, considering WP:BLPPRIVACY.

Assuming that it comes from Jazz Jennings' verified Twitter account ([3]), I believe the tweet would be a reliable source for her birthday, per WP:TWITTER. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:43, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Columbia University rape controversy

That quote was removed, I cannot find it in the article. It wasn't summarized anywhere else. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 23:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Since you insist on re-adding the quotes, I've removed the summary. I don't know what you mean by "That quote was removed, I cannot find it in the article", but please stop removing the phrase "if the complaint is to be believed" from the "fudged some details" quote, as leaving that phrase out changes the meaning substantially. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

About Third Opinion

Hello, when removing a dispute from the Third Opinion page, please state which dispute you're moving, why you're removing it and how many disputes remain on the list in your edit summary. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Sorry I forgot to do that, and I'll do my best to remember in the future. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your acknowledgements on "second-generation gender bias" article Comment

I didn't know about this concept and editing the page helped me deepen knowledge in my academic profession while continuing to increase my proficiency as a WPian. I am a professor of color and I've been teaching WIkiEdu for about a year now. Students in my Black Popular Culture course and my Political Sociology course edited WP this term and the term "Second-generation gender bias" was introduced to me by a student. They have learned so much for becoming editors. So have I! How long have you been an editor? What's on your agenda at the moment about the gender gap? Will you attend in Montreal? --sheridanford (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi SheridanFord! Thanks for the message, and thanks for your work on the article. I've learned a lot since becoming a Wikipedia editor too...my first edit was in 2007, but it was a few years before I really became active. I'm not currently working very actively on the gender gap, although I am trying to be more friendly on Wikipedia in the hopes of fostering a more welcoming environment. I'm also hoping to run some workshops/edit-a-thons in the near future, to hopefully encourage new editors. That's not specifically targeted at the gender gap, but given how wide the gap is, I think running events with a good mix of genders has the potential to help a little. WikiEdu seems like it would potentially be a good way to help address systemic bias too—are you doing any other gender gap–related work?

I won't be attending Wikimania this year—I'll be busy with other stuff, and I'm currently living pretty far away, in the southern hemisphere. But I hope I can attend someday! —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Macron (diacritic)#Proposed merge with Macron below

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Macron (diacritic)#Proposed merge with Macron below. --Nevé–selbert 00:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jars of Clay (album). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

USPS Prohibitory Orders

I have applied for and received a Prohibitory Order in the past, and also, when the sender continued to violate it, I went through the procedures to enforce the Prohibitory Order. After I sent the Processing Center three violations, they sent me a notice that they had received enough evidence to send to the DoJ to get a court order.

Since that time I moved and more than five years had passed. I reapplied for another Prohibitory Order for the same sender, and to my surprise the Processing Center denied my request. The processing center now uses a 'check list' to determine if the applicant meets all their criteria for issuing a Prohibitory Order. They checked off the box that said they were unable to find my address in the database because it said resident, instead of my full name. I think this is a violation of the Supreme Court's Rowan decision. If you would like to discuss this further and want a copy of the check list, contact me at my email address [e-mail] Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.204.132.93 (talk) 18:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know much about this topic. I don't think I can help you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Expert template

I added the expert template so that what I want about George Hempl's theory on the letter G can get more attention. I would like to know if anyone is an expert on George Hempl's theory about the letter G's history to any particular extent. I created a draft article, and I would like to know if anyone can improve it in any way; I recommend someone who can translate German easily because there's an actual article in the German Wikipedia. Can you?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The expert attention template would be used there if there are serious problems with the article G that need expert attention, not for assistance requested at another article.

I don't speak much German, but to get help with Draft:George Hempl, I would suggest using Template:Expand language at that page or posting at WT:WikiProject Linguistics. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the article is talking about Hempl's theory without any information on who Hempl is. It would be nicer if Hempl had a Wikipedia article, and this needs attention from a real expert on Hempl and his theory. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand—that's a request for assistance with a different article, not a request for expert attention on a serious problem with the article G itself. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The different article is non-existent, and G is the article that has the problem that Hempl's name is mentioned without any real information on who Hempl is. Georgia guy (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay. So I take it you're looking for someone to add more information about Hempl to the article G? That's not the kind of serious problem that merits Template:Expert needed, in my opinion. Moreover, it does not require an expert to solve. A non-expert can easily add a bit of information from this source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm attack. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

About Jeff Dujon

How is mentioning his Test debut, Test victories and adding new references "unconstructive"? To me they seem like legitimate contributions.The 51st Division (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA for English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA for English. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"Hello Internet vandalism" in regard to future US flag designs

Recently, you reverted an edit on the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_flags_of_the_United_States#Possible_future_designs regarding a hypothetical future US flag designed by hosts of Hello Internet. I believe that this was the wrong thing to do, the flag that was removed was a legitimate flag design, just as legitimate as any of the other flags in that portion of the article. I'd like to know what rule in particular that portion of the article violated, and that it wasn't just removing the typical vandalism made by listeners of the podcast.

Redrield (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The flag clearly does not belong in that section, because it is not an example of a flag with more than 50 stars. Its inclusion is part of a long-term vandalism campaign by the hosts of the podcast Hello Internet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The flag chose to take a different design aesthetic by instead representing each of the 51 states as a point on one star. Also, I'd like to make it clear that the hosts never actively send listeners of the podcast to vandalize Wikipedia, all of that is simply done by the listeners of their own avail

Redrield (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Internet

I'm not sure how much of a problem this is but have you considered Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea. The difficulty is that a lot of the vandalism doesn't include links to the podcast's website. I'll think about it, though. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Not ignoring electric power lines besides mains, at fire alarm call box

I tried to improve fire alarm call box (with this dynamic IP address) by specifying that VoIP equipment needs external power to run, rather than just "power" period. But that improvement got reverted by a user who doesn't understand telephony enough to know that PSTN lines have their own power that basic phones run on. ("Well, DUH, what did you think the basic phones ran on: magic fairy dust?") So before I added the improvement that he faultily reverted, the article made the errant implication that the only kind of line power comes from mains, hence my having added clarification words such as "external" to "power," to indicate to the people whom my above parenthetical phrase applies to that PSTN lines have their own power, while the article already covers that VoIP and the charging of cell phones takes another source of line power. So let's agree to use my improvement in this regard, rather than regressing the article to a less correct form, shall we?

I left this at the talk page there. Will you please come and help out?

Thanks, if so,

97.117.49.178 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Jazz Jennings

So, because the birth date was unsourced, the entire infobox had to be removed? The infobox allows for only birth years, too. You could have preserved the infobox rather than just reverting my changes entirely. Although, I understand the removal of the unsourced birth date.

Sincerely,

Pjor1 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I could have been more careful with my reverting. The article has a long-term problem with people adding unsourced birthdates—if you want to add an infobox that's fine with me, but please do not add an unsourced birthdate. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Whataboutism

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Whataboutism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Brady Haran Article Discussion

What part of the information I added is not in the source? I'll copy what I wrote here so we can discuss it:

• In July 2017, Haran was included in a Radio Times poll for their Radio and Podcast Championship. After listeners of the podcast realized that they could vote multiple times in the poll, a few of them began to use HTML scripts to automatically and repeatedly vote for Haran in the poll.[21] This was stopped when a CAPTCHA was added to the poll for several hours, although scripting began again after the CAPTCHA was removed. The poll closed with Haran as the winner.[22]

First Sentence: The month is correct, as sourced by the date the news article was written.

Second Sentence: Users from the Reddit community, as mentioned in the article, used scripts for Windows and JavaScript to vote for Haran.

Third Sentence: As mentioned in the article, a CAPTCHA was added to stop people from scripting.

Fourth Sentence: Earlier I switched the source for the sentence claiming Haran won the poll to a newer page on the Radio Times website that specifically states that Haran won the poll.

The current way it is written is not detailed enough, and I think the way I wrote it makes it clearer what happened exactly. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The first source says that the Hello Internet Reddit community used bots on the poll, not "a few of" the "listeners of the podcast". It doesn't say anything about HTML, and indeed from what I know of HTML I think the bots would have to have been written in some other language. The second source doesn't support the CAPTCHA stuff at all—in fact, it doesn't say anything about CAPTCHAs. Please do not re-add any of these claims unless they are adequately sourced.

I have to disagree with you that the way the paragraph is currently written is not detailed enough. Frankly, I don't think this incident should be mentioned in the article at all. The sole secondary source only briefly mentions Haran and focuses on the Reddit community and its bots, not on him. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The first source supports most of the claims in that paragraph. The one source that supports all of the statements in that paragraph is not entirely reliable either though, as they are not simply reporting on the event, but they are painting the people who used the scripts in a negative light. If that article is the sole source we have for the details of the poll, I believe we might as well simply remove the information about the poll. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DAT Solutions

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:DAT Solutions. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Libraries. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Help talk:IPA/English

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Help talk:IPA/English. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Democrat Party (epithet). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Appologies

Hi, I just wanted to apologise for my edits to Brady Haran adding "Dr" to his name - I was unaware of wikipedia's policy of not adding honorary doctorates. On a separate but related topic, has there been agreement that has been archived regarding adding his many, many channels? Thank you for your understanding. Mindi Crayon (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, and I'm sorry if my message was a little harsh—dealing with the Hello Internet fans who come to add inside jokes has gotten tiresome. As for his channels, there seems to be some discussion about it here: Talk:Brady Haran/Archives/2014#Moving "Haran's YouTube Channels". I wouldn't object to adding a list of the channels to Brady Haran, but if you want to get other editors' opinions you could bring it up at Talk:Brady Haran. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:02, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Metric

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Metric. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers. Legobot (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wilfrid Laurier University. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mx. Granger. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Useful idiot

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Useful idiot. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Drumpf

Hi there --

Thank you for the heads up! I had no idea I was changing the articles in that way and was not actively trying to troll them. Thank you for being understanding of my situation. I will be more conscientious of it in the future as I make changes to Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adostaler (talk • contribs) 01:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)