User talk:Mx. Granger

Archives

2007–2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 14 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Note: Thebigmandownstairs's mentor Lajmmoore is away.

Hello! What should I do if I find a stub with one citation that no longer links to a webpage? should I remove it and leave the article without a citation, leave it alone, or try to find an updated source? --Thebigmandownstairs (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thebigmandownstairs, you're certainly welcome to try to find an updated source. If you can't find one, I would probably leave the citation there rather than removing it. Even if the link is dead, the information that's there might help someone find another copy of the source, for example on the Wayback Machine. You can tag the broken link with Template:dead link, if the tag isn't there already. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:13, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to submit this as an article, it is asking me for edits to references. Not sure how to do this. Billbrod1 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Billbrod1, thanks for the message. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources, which explains how and why to add references, and let me know if you have any questions! —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IND123456's mentor Sohom Datta is away.

Hi Sir, I have been working on the page Draft:Partial meltdown of Leningrad unit 1 and Chernobyl unit 1. I noticed that the References section was missing, when I added it, it isn't opening to show the reference list. Could you please check the issue and let me know, I am unable to do so. Thanks. --IND123456 (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IND123456, thanks for the message. I've added {{reflist}} to the draft in this edit. Is that what you're looking for? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:13, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you very much. I had one more question for you. I recently edited the page James Mill, The History of British India. I added some observations of scholars regarding his work on Indian history. But an editor reverted that edit naming it to be undue and unsourced even after providing complete citation. When I reverted it, he sent me a notification saying that I was fighting for that edit, and that it needed consensus. I don't feel I was, as it is the page talks about scholars objecting with Mills narration such as F. Max Müller, Thomas Trautmann , etc. and in my view adding few more views of scholars such as Romila Thapar, Kundan Singh and Krishna Maheshwari shouldn't be a great issue, as it is adding information from reliable academic sources. Can you please guide me on what are the exact Wikipedia protocols on this issue and issues with the content added. Thanks IND123456 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@IND123456: Sure! I see that you've started a discussion at Talk:James Mill, which is the right next step after an edit has been reverted. In that talk page discussion, it's probably a good idea to ping the editor who reverted the edit, similar to how I used {{ping|IND123456}} to ping you in this comment.

After that, if a few days go by with no response from the editor who reverted, you can go ahead and reinstate the edit (you can mention in your edit summary that there was no response in the talk page discussion). If the editor does respond, you can discuss with them and try to reach a compromise or agreement.

If you have trouble coming to an agreement, there are various ways to seek input from other editors.

Let me know if you have more questions or could use more guidance. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do the needful. IND123456 (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So, about the Dean Roy page, where can I find reliable, independent information about him? --ZukoWK (talk) 04:20, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found some, could you please review it? I really admire this person, and I hope for them to get a Wikipedia page. ZukoWK (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZukoWK, the sources look good to me. If you can find more, that would help bolster the case for an article. Many editors apply a higher bar for electoral candidates than for most other topics; I've seen other articles in this topic area deleted even when multiple independent reliable sources are present. So if you can find additional high-quality sources, that would help. (If you find low-quality sources, though, it's probably not worth adding them, as they may distract the reviewer from the high-quality sources you've added like Newsweek and AP News.) —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:31, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I find high-quality sources? News pages, etc. ZukoWK (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for this topic I think news outlets are probably your best bet. You can try searching on Google News, or you can go through a list of high-quality news outlets (maybe with a focus on Vermont newspapers) and search each one's website individually. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IND123456's mentor Sohom Datta is away.

Hi. I would once again like to consult you in regard with James Mill. I would firstly thank you for lending your support for the edit, which was legitimate in all aspects. As you may recall, I had added similar content on the page History of British India, James Mill. We discussed majorly on the talk page of the former, but once we reached a consensus, and @EarthDude: was unable to prove his point, I edited both pages in response to the discussion. The opposes had to agree to the edits on the former page, but reverted those on the latter, saying that discussion on other page isn't relevant their. They also sent two notifications regarding edit warring and said that I may be banned and so on. I added an excerpt from the book of Mill (1817) as an image, which to was reverted and termed as useless. I would like to know what protocols does Wikipedia have in such circumstances and is it justifiable to accuse the other of edit warring, even when the content is well sourced. Also, in my view, the stance taken by the other editors represents their unwilling nature to agree to the pushback to certain ideology, which I would like to avoid to name. I also offered to discuss the content again and try to remould it, but alas!! What protocol does Wikipedia follow in this regard, and what can be worked out. You may feel as if I am complaining, but...I hope you understand the issue...it's about neutrality, which in my view, Wikipedia currently lacks and is largely western centric. For example you may check the page History of the Horse in the Indian subcontinent for my edits and their reversions, again by a certain set of editors opposed to any opinion of scholars which doesn't match the standard narrative, not to name any....and off course rejection of other opinions...I hope you will be able to help Thank you. --IND123456 (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: History of the horse in the Indian subcontinent IND123456 (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IND123456, sorry for the slow response. I've left a comment at Talk:James Mill – see what you think. Hopefully the three of us can find consensus there.

In general, if editors can't find consensus in a talk page discussion, the next step is to try to get more input (for example by posting at a relevant WikiProject like WT:WikiProject History or WT:WikiProject India) or to start an RFC. Let's give the discussion at Talk:James Mill some more time, and if the three of us can't come to a solution, I can start an RFC there. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:04, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no issue, I will check your comment, thanks. IND123456 (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dangrek Incident on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 17:30, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]