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.
I provided necessary citations to my edit on the "I am Jazz" page. I added the Jennings family's legal last- Bloshinsky- in supplement to the family's pseudonym. Jazz Jennings' legal last name is Bloshinsky
ZhangWeiChina (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I do not think that source meets WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you can find a high-quality secondary source, feel free to bring it up at Talk:Jazz Jennings. I have to tell you, though, this issue has been discussed before and has never obtained consensus for inclusion. —Granger (talk·contribs) 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The legal fact that Jazz Jennings' last name is Bloshisnky is not controversial, unless the definition of 'controversial' has substantially changed.
ZhangWeiChina (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "legal fact", but we have to follow WP:V, and information about living people has to satisfy more stringent requirements explained here. Again, if you can find high-quality sources, feel free to bring them up on the talk page and see if you can get consensus. —Granger (talk·contribs) 02:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
@Orientls: Thanks for leaving most of the key parts of my changes alone. The only remaining problem is that it doesn't make sense to say that "the country" has deliberately done anything—we're talking about a country of more than a billion people with widely varying motivations and actions. The sources talking about deliberate under-reporting are talking about various levels of the government, not the population at large. —Granger (talk·contribs) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you really believe that it makes any sense to mention that China has donated or received donations on lead unless we also mention the criticism made about China for making defective donations? I would say this is all undue for the lead. Orientls (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I do think it makes sense to mention that China has made and received donations to do with the pandemic—both parts of that have been widely reported in many reliable sources. The issues with defective supplies have been reported in a comparatively small number of sources, but we could mention that in the lead too if you want. —Granger (talk·contribs) 18:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
I was commenting on the specific SYNTH issue raised in late March; my comments then aren't relevant to the information that has been added more recently. —Granger (talk·contribs) 19:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes about your comments, but the BBC story initially inserted by NavrotSJ (?) is still referring to the BioEasy nonsense raised in the article cited by the OP at the time. It feels as if I am "butting heads" against people who are selectively quoting and won't acknowledge it. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Tedros Adhanom
Just out of interest, why did you remove the criticism of this person and say that there should not be a specific criticism section, when virtually every other public figure on Wikipedia has a 'Criticism/Controversies' section? I'd like to know why you singled him out for special treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.129.237 (talk • contribs)
I didn't "single him out for special treatment". Criticism sections are a magnet for WP:NPOV problems and are generally discouraged. Well-written articles about major public figures generally do not have a designated "Criticism" section; see Barack Obama for an example. See also WP:CSECTION.
By the way, I didn't remove the criticism of Tedros, but rather incorporated it into other parts of the article where appropriate. —Granger (talk·contribs) 15:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Fred Singer's shade a "denier"?
Sorry about editing something you had already replied to. But I cited BLP, then realized he's no longer a Living Person! Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
I see that you for whatever reason keep adding Somalia without providing any sources. Would you please mind adding reliable sources? This is an article a lot of people read, some of them may take the info as granted, and in these high-risk articles we can not really afford keeping unsourced info. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Due to my occupation I spend many thousands of hours each year cramped in metal tubes. Do you really think that the US is not unusual in requiring ALL transit passengers (even if departing on the same flight and actual aircraft - eg NZ1 and NZ2 from and to AKL via LAX to LHR - a few hours after landing) to formally enter the US by completing US immigration formalities (rather than just waiting in a transit lounge or airside)?
It is unusual, yes. I've heard Canada has a similar policy, though I don't know if it applies to all transit passengers or only to those changing to a different aircraft. —Granger (talk·contribs) 16:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
No, as you'd expect from a rational, civilized country that conforms with global norms, Canada does not require air passengers in transit to a third country to formally "enter" Canada (unless they are from one of the many "visa required" countries or not transiting while remaining in the same physical terminal or requiring more than 24 hours between flights or) unless they they are proceeding to or from the US. The reason I raise this is because of the text you recently removed: "[Because the US is unusual in requiring even transit passengers to formally complete immigration procedures and enter the US, if even for a few hours, this measure also terminated all US airports as transit hubs.]".
I do concede that the removed text is misleading since, although people travelling from Taiwan in the COVID best-controlled territory of the Republic of China can no longer transit the US to get to or from Iceland due to the edict of the "stable genius", people originating in the plague ridden hell hole of Port-au-Prince still can. Go figure...--BushelCandle (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Saw your comment about us uncut. Thanks fo rthe message. The orginal url is actually www.usuncut.org and it's still live ont he web. The movie link is the best context (www.werenotbroke.com) for the actual stroy of what they did. Maybe we can add both in some way, but www.usuncut.com is not the correct we b address. It's a defunct site that's monetized for cell phoens or something. It doesn't contribute to the wiki knowledge base to direct people there, unless your said owner of that site and trying to make a buck. It's inaccurate and doesn't reflect the organization. Maybe you could spend as much time watching the movie as you have on deleting edits to see what I'm talking aobut. You may need a PACER account to see it, but check out the publicly filed paperwork at NH Civil Action No. 1:16-CV-368-PB (available here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4517251/us-uncut-llc-v-clayton/). It clearly shows who the original owner and admin of the facebook page (Clayton), which is why the claimants protested publicly losing access to the page (does that make sense?). I'm going to give you a few days to see this and reconsider. And then I'll make changes to the page again to enhance it's accuracey. I'm open to having a dialogue on this, ty bb Oregon4progress (talk) 12:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Lucy
Thanks for the message. As suggested at WP:ELDEAD, I've replaced the hijacked link with an archived copy. Because werenotbroke.com is not and was not U.S. Uncut's official website, it shouldn't be labeled as such in the article.
Okay, I see what you're saying now. Is there a way to add the movie url more prominently in the side bar? It's really the most informative source for the story of it. Most importantly, you keep asserting that usuncut.com as the url (linking a wayback site now which is better), but that's not the url of the organization, which was and still is usuncut.org (check it out, you'll see). If you look at the content of the wiki, it speaks mostly about a series of protests before occupy (you can go to usuncut.org to see some content and use wayback to search the archives). You can also watch the documentary at the movie link, which makes it pretty obvious. The .com goes to a defunct news site, which was created when new admins hijacked the admin privileges of the page created originally for the protests - that's just not what this wiki is about (maybe there needs to be another page). So, the accurate URL for the wiki US Uncut is www.usuncut.org. I will make the change today. Please refrain from altering it again without consensus. Thank you. Oregon4progress (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Lucy
Also, to answer your specific question. Here's a reference of usuncut.org in 01 March 11 on MSNBC, citing Clayton as co-founder. https://readersupportednews.org/video/4-video/5116-middle-class-keeps-up-the-fight There's probably a video of this somewhere. UsUncut.com doesn't have any archived posts of the news site with their formatting and logo until 2015 https://web.archive.org/web/20150906074134/http://usuncut.com/ (this is also not the logo on the us uncut wiki fyi, which is the logo of the protest organization that the article is primarily about). Clearly, the protest organization existed prior to the news site. It's clear he was involved in the original org, while at least some of the admins of the news sites involved in the litigation were not at all. Also clear is that those people lost access to the page built by the protests. If you can look at the court docs, it is clear why they have not regained access. As that one saying goes, be careful what you build on stolen land. Oregon4progress (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Lucy
Please report whenever you see this LTA. They need to be immediately blocked. Thank you. El_C21:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@El C: Okay. The edits I've been reverting today are mostly from weeks or months ago, which I assume is too stale to be worth reporting? Or should I report them anyway? —Granger (talk·contribs) 21:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
That's right, don't worry about stale IPs — report in real time (or close), if you can. El_C21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Esther Earl
Hi @Mx. Granger: Social media link Tumblr, Forbes, Huff-post, Crunchbase and so are now flagged up by the media-wiki software, as low-quality references. If they show up as blue, then they considered as very low-quality/predatory sources or yellow as partially low-quality and you check them. The policy is now remove them. They are not high-quality references. You see them as blue or yellow if your part of part of certain group, and the policy now is to remove them. I think the article is better without them. Please do not add them back. Better quality sources can be found. Thanks. scope_creepTalk11:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Scope creep. This is an unusual case, as these citations are reliable as self-published sources for information about John Green. The policy I linked specifically mentions Tumblr as an example of a source that can be acceptable in this situation. If you think they should be removed, please start a discussion and get consensus on the article's talk page. —Granger (talk·contribs) 12:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Persecution of pagans
You asked if a reference was intended, and I think changed it to Brown2012 making a duplicate of another reference, so I had to change it back. Are you the one who added Christian apologist to Brown's name? That is an incorrect characterization.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Hello Mx. Granger. I saw you add a citation needed tag in Erhai Lake article. You are right, the etymology doesn't come from ear. I have updated the information of Erhai Lake. If you think somewhere not clear enough. Just notice me improve it. I come from Yunnan and happy in editing Yunnan articles.--Xiliuheshui · chat02:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi..hundreds of people have been killed
A youth in Nigeria is likely to be killed and I am trying to raise awareness on Wikipedia so that the Government can be serious and do the right thing
And all you care about is changing them?
We are talking about people's lives here.
I do not live in Nigeria but I am inclined to help them
You should too
Pls leave the edits for just few days until things are ok.
Thanks for your cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olasunkanmi007 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I think it's misleading to include the partial vote counts, at least for a state whose winner has not yet been projected by reliable sources. Including the partial vote counts gives the impression that the winner of the state is known, but in Pennsylvania the winner is not yet known. I checked a few other articles (2020 United States presidential election in Florida, 2020 United States presidential election in Montana, 2020 United States presidential election in Michigan) and found that they don't give the partial results either (even though it would be less misleading, as winners in those states have been projected by reliable sources). An additional issue is that it's hard to keep these numbers up to date—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
