User talk:Mr.grantevans2/Archive4

r.e.

Hey, no worries, no grudge held :) I shouldn't have snapped back at people, I was having a bad day. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I offer my apologies for the comment I made about you on the Jared Lee Loughner talk page the other day, it was clearly uncalled for, and I've removed it. I'll not offer any excuses other than to say that I've been somewhat frustrated by another contributor attempting to change article names on highly dubious grounds (rather than the more sensible ones for Loughner), and I just snapped. Not one of my better habits - hence the user name, which is supposed to remind me to behave myself. Evidently, it didn't work :( AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I responded on Andy's talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr.grantevans2. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gerardw (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your abusive language in Talk:Jared Lee Loughner

I consider that totally unacceptable: see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mr.grantevans2. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assange

Hi, please don't edit war, use WP:BRD - the content is established - so wait to see if there is support for your desired removal on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please allow me to add that you did not deviate from BRD, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this time you are in error - the contentis new and was boldly added and removed and now we are in the discussion stage and that is not a time for you to revert the content back in, wait and join in discussion and consensus, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it. ok, I think I get it(finally) now. Thank you for your patience,Rob. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, perhaps a quick straw poll on the talkpage would see if there is support for this content - I don't support it at all and I was wondering, as the citation is dated, is the issue really relevant at all anyways? Clearly they want him extradited to Sweden in relation to these allegations, the irrelevance of whether he has actually been charged is hairsplitting really, some say, he left the country the day he realized he was going to be arrested the day after but we are not adding that are we.. Off2riorob (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the core difficulty, not just for us but for many Reliable Sources, is we are writing events eminating from Swedish law for a largely Anglo/American mentality. Just that Q and A source Kathalu provided gives me a headache trying to figure out exactly what would go into the BLP from that article. It seems ambiguous to me. BUt what I think is going on is that Sweden has a system where targets of investigations do not have the right to remain silent and that the actual questioning process is part of the prosecution process. E.g., if I was visiting Sweden and in a bar where someone was killed and somebody said that they saw me do it; then the police,I think, could arrest me exclusively for the purpose of interrogation. In other words, Assange right now, seems to be in a process simlilar to what we would know as a search warrant; except it is his mind which is to be searched through the venue of interrogation. I really think the whole thing is, as you often say, just too unsettled to determine much of anything and the Reliable Sources seem to provide content which cancels each other out and we are left with only 1 real sum which is that Assange is wanted for interrogation in Sweden and an extradition process is underway in that regard. Maybe 1 or 2 sentences, not a section, imo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you remove that template Grant - thanks for that - I agree with you in a way, the section could actually say what its saying in half the words.. I might offer something for discussion along those lines on talk - or you can also.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no easy analogy

I hope you don't mind that I react to a comment that you have withdrawn on the Assange TP. I am pleased to have seen it since it shows that I am not completely talking into the wind. It seems to me that for American readers the fact that no charges have been filed is proof of how unfairly Assange is being treated. Or is that impression wrong? While criminal proceedings are roughly the same throughout Europe and in the US, there are differences in the details. One of the important points that the extradition judge will have to decide is in fact which point the procedure in Sweden has reached. Assange's lawyers say Sweden merely wants him for interrogation and that is no valid reason for inter-EU extraditon. Ny says in her written statement of 4 February 2011 to the UK court: (...) Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and (that) he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries. It was interesting to me to read this because it confirmed the haunch I had right from the beginning. It does not have to be mentioned in the article but "he has not been charged" should not be mentioned either, no matter how many newspapers have copied that line from each other. Because if you include it you give the reader the impression that somehow the Swedes are in the wrong to request extradition and you do that before the extradition court has ruled on this contentious point. In Sweden as in Germany, prosecutors do not file charges, they indict straight away for trial, there is no preliminary hearing to decide whether to indict, and it is the prosecutor who indicts, not the court or grand jury as in the US. KathaLu (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your points are well made and I must agree with them. More generally, and not Assange related, I am starting to wonder if, from a purely educational perspective, it is possible to have an encyclopedia written for a global audience. Even the Canadian and American cultures,mentalities,and political and legal systems are so different it is really hard if not impossible to present articles which fit both groups of Readers..... and the British,Irish and Aussies? Forgetaboutit. Perhaps I will start thinking of Wikipedia as art; "functional art" so to speak, intended to be intepreted differently by different people(s). Maybe that idea's a cop-out, but at this moment it makes me smile. I mean I love the work of van Gogh, but I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, the content of his work is all about. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

conspiracy theory

Hi, see if you can get consensus to add this nonsense on the talkpage please. As the user said, we don't report all trivia and five sources is well to me it is still tabloid tittilation - and rumour and well not encyclopedic at all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its OR and or pov pushing to say its nonsense when its reported by the likes of AOL,Guardian,Miami Herald. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re mediation

As I understand it, the purpose of mediation on Wikipedia is to settle disputes over specific issues, rather than more general conflicts between editors - I'm not sure it would achieve much anyway: we are obviously both rather stubborn, and not likely to be malleable to this sort of process. I think perhaps the best thing we can do is try to sort it out ourselves. I'll start by apologising for my last outburst - it clearly wasn't appropriate.

ok, that's just as well for me; u r right about my disposition. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the issue of bias in the Swedish Judicial Authority v Julian Assange case, I think I've made my position clear on the talk page as to why there are two sorts of 'bias' - and we can only really do anything about one of them. Assange has been accused of serious sexual misconduct, and even if this is entirely false, it isn't going to do his reputation any good - this is 'bias' (unless of course the allegations are true), but it is an external event-driven one, not of Wikipedia's doing, and one we can't 'fix'. If we restrict ourselves to reporting just the undisputed facts - that allegations have been made, and denied, and that there are ongoing legal events, we will at least leave readers with the option to make their own mind up (or preferably, wait until more factual evidence arrives), rather than put ourselves in the position of trying to tell readers what to think. Given that the verifiable facts of the matter are sparse (or at least, the significant ones appear to be), I still think that the article is unnecessary, and the issue would have been better dealt with in the Assange biography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I'm not sure whether I agree, but I understand your reasoning and will think about it. Right now I'm wondering why we could not use the same reasoning to include the CIA allegations - that allegations have been made- I don't remember who made them but I think they were credited to someone in those sources I gave. So, I am wondering what the difference in those 2 sets of allegations, maybe its the court involvement in the 1 and not the other? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An 'allegation' made by an uninvolved third party isn't really the same thing as an allegation made to the police, and in any case, we don't seem to have any direct links to anyone actually making a definitive statement (with evidence) that they believe the CIA is involved - instead we seem to have reports that others have suggested this. Frankly, I think that were there any substance to the story, Assange's defence team would have raised the issue in court, or at least made more of it in the media. I'm sure they will have checked into it, and presumably they didn't find anything substantive - or maybe they did, but are keeping quiet about it until any possible trial. If the latter is true, we still have nothing to go on ourselves, and repeating unsubstantiated second-hand theories about people is a violation of BLP policy. It is also worth noting that these claims of a CIA link have only been made about one of the women, and the most serious allegation (rape) relates to the other one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, what you are saying does make sense. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Libyan uprising

FIY - the source was saying so, at the time it had been inserted to the article. --Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. not surprising as the sources are updating their details so rapidly. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bit sore though, as the BBC page seems to be updating according to other webpages, not to the changing claims of their own sources - at least I can't find another explanation for such a change - without any reference as to the rationale of the update.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, they are becoming more "blogish" every day. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura

He was a visiting Fellow on 2004, as the article states, but not a professor. The Crimson doesn't say he was a professor either. You don't appear to understand what a professor is, which may be why you misunderstood your source. Please don't add this again. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama citizenship

You're getting close to edit warring, be careful. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's frustrating but allow me to give you some advice. Read WP:Verifiability, not truth. Realize that if you believe the media has a liberal bias—like I do—unfortunately Wikipedia has to reflect that to some extent, as it is, after all, an encyclopedia based on reliable sources. It is frustrating to see things like an article named Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and a similar article named George W. Bush military service controversy, but unfortunately that, to a large extent, accurately mirrors press coverage of those issues. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Dougweller (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I did not know anything about the existance of an "article probation" designation nor that this article is in that designation. Thanks again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's always useful to read the stuff at the top of an article talk page - usually it's not very important, but on any controversial article (and some you might not think are controversial) it may have a statement about sanctions. Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see what you mean, I was just heading there to read all of the notices and I must incorporate that process(of reading the top notices on talk pages) in the future too. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention the article probation in Talk page comments and edit summary yesterday, but admittedly there is a lot of material there, so it may have been missed. To make it easier, just keep in mind that all Obama-related articles - "broadly construed" - are covered by ArbCom's article probation, whether or not the box has been added yet to the top of a page. Tvoz/talk 16:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok, Thanks for that. I appreciate the heads up; I rarely edit Obama articles (this might even be the first time), so I had no idea about the probation, but I do now. Thanks again. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind it applies to talk pages and comments on the subject anywhere on Wikipedia. Personal talk pages generally have a bit more leeway, but they are also included, so use care there as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis and Consensus

Hi. I'd just like to explain what I've been saying here. This is synthesis because the content you are adding is supported by a cite that does not establish any link between Obama and the legal statute being quoted. You are doing a classic A + B therefore C, where A and B are separately cited facts combined, and C is a conclusion not made in either source.

A = Joshua Wisch says this.. [cite]
B = Hawaii Statute says this .. [cite from source that makes no reference to Wisch's statement or Obama]
therefore the reader is led to conclude, by implication; C = Wisch is wrong/lying/whatever in this particular case.

This is a conclusion that cannot be made on Wikipedia, it needs to appear in a reliable source first. There is no knowing what misinterpretation of the statute may be being made here in this original research, as there is no knowing the expertise of the people performing it. This is why it is not permitted on Wikipedia, or indeed on any encyclopaedia which should only summarise what has already been said by those whose expertise is acknowledged, or can be verified.

It's also usual practice for discussion on challenged new content to reach consensus before it is added, not that it remains added until consensus is reached to remove it. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see a "therefore", instead I see 2 conflicting data points. The Readers can follow up on it if they wish to form their own opinions as to which is correct or if somehow both are. It is only an assumption that some Editor is trying to show a conclusion, I see just the opposite; that there is no definite conclusion from looking at those 2 bits of content. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

I have to admit, I was surprised that they released the copy. I think it shows the level of frustration for Obama's team about this issue. I'm not expecting this to do too much though - hopefully derail Trump, but that's probably about it. Thanks for the comments you made on ANI and the talk page, but honestly, you really didn't need to make them. (I appreciate them though!) It really boils down to why WP has to focus on good sources to define the mainstream view. If public opinion is different, that is absolutely vital to include. Public opinion is easily changeable, and usually reflects a very filtered version of what they want to hear. Hopefully good journalists fight that filter and report on what's there. If we're really lucky, they'll also separate their opinion from the facts. You did a good job on the article. Articles like this work best when editors push and prod each other to make sure the information in the article is based on good sources, NPOV and in proper weight. Ravensfire (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]