User talk:Mr.grantevans2/Archive 1

I am the same person as Mr.grantevans but I forgot my password.(Originally posted Aug.20,2007)

swine flu
I made an amazing discovery last night: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_flu_pandemic&oldid=325707238#Long_Term_Eating_of_Pork_Seems_to_Provide_Some_Immunity

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_flu_pandemic&oldid=325707238

Long Term Eating of Pork Seems to Provide Some Immunity This may be Original Research but quite ironic and maybe important. I was comparing the USDA's list-by country-of per capita pork consumption with Wikipedia's h1n1 deaths by country list; I found the exact opposite of what I expected: The 10 countries with the highest per capita pork consumption have had a total of 205 deaths and the 10 countries with the lowest per capita pork consumption have had a total of 2,460 deaths. Now that I think about it, it does make sense that people who habitually eat a lot of pork would have likely been exposed at some point to the bug and built up immunity over the years. e.g.Germans eat 50 pounds per capita and have had 13 deaths whereas the British eat 23 pounds and have had 183 deaths. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are the links to the data: http://www.fas.usda.gov/dlp2/circular/1997/97-03/porkpcap.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic_by_country The very definition of original research and synthesis. Edison (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Rocco Rossi
Hey, thanks for the acknowledgement re: sourcing some of the info on Rocco Rossi's article. I've noticed that we've been going back and forth on undoing and redoing that lead paragraph. I think continuing to do so is fruitless, and coming to a consensus on the issue would be much more productive. It appears we both want the same thing: a NPOV article that accurately portrays Mr. Rossi and meets the standards of an NPOV Wikipedia entry.

I'm all for listening and collaborating on this issue. In going back and forth, I've come to realize that I haven't taken the time to understand why you feel your lead is more neutral than mine. Perhaps with heightened insight, we can reach an acceptable lead and move forth with updating that page so it moves beyond a "start" page.

Thank you as well for your contributions to this page and the pages of other mayoral candidates. As a concerned citizen, I feel it is important for this information to be readily accessible to the public during the critical time of an election period. Medwardsca (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * replied on his talk pahge. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I agree with Bearcat that the "Rosedale Gang" mention in the lead is undue weight, and support that position. With that said, my interpretation of Bearcat's lead on the talk page is that it's illustrative of a lead without the Rosedale gang mention. I've been following this article and it's talk page very closely, and I believe that the lead I introduced and supported on March 26 on the talk page is a more accurate summation of Mr. Rossi's career and accomplishments. With your concurrence, I'd like to move forward and gain consensus for this lead. The case I've made for it gain be read again on the Rocco Rossi talk page. I encourage your reply on that page. Thanks again for your reply. I'm new to Wikipedia editing and appreciate the sense of community that seems to develop across these talk pages. 99.226.53.53 (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to log in! Comment was from me. Medwardsca (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Rossi pix
All I see is that Skychildofthesun added a new picture. I don't see this as a big change. You may want to message this user as to which one is appropriate to lead the article. The fact that bunglehead reverted your revert is irrelevant at this point. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Star Archives
Before you go off half-cocked deleting this or that just because you can't find them is no reason to delete properly referenced information. Just because something isn't online doesn't mean it isn't a good RS. Have you never bought a newspaper and read it? Archives of these exist that are not online.

Having said that, there is a way to view Toronto Star (and many other publications) for free. Here's how to do it. You'll need a library card to use this site (which is free).


 * 1. Go to the Toronto Public Library website
 * 2. Click on "Find articles in magazines, newspapers and more"
 * 3. Click on "Magazines and Newspaper list"
 * 4. Navigate to listing for Toronto Star (listed alphabetically)
 * 5. There are three sources. "Canadian Newsstand Major Dailies" is the best one
 * 6. The ProQuest archive has every article from May 23, 1985 to present
 * 7. For the article you just deleted search "On this date: 10/20/2002"
 * 8. Articles for each edition are listed alphabetically

You'll find the quote there. Many publications available here are not yet available through common internet search engines such as Google News Archive. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Helena Guergis
Just because Gillani has contradicted Snowdy's claims does not mean you can unilaterally delete well referenced claims and accusations that are directly relevant to Guergis and to this scandal. Snowdy's claims and Gillani's claims contradict each other, but both claims remain on the record. Moreover, you have also removed relevant info from Layton's requests for an investigation into the matter.

The proper course of action after a bold action is reverted is to discuss, not to re-revert. As such, I have again restored the material you deleted. If you wish to push for rewording and removal, lets bring it to the talk page of the article and elicit the opinion of other editors. Resolute 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If Guergis's being verbally abusive in Charlottetown was alleged? Why did she apologize (via letter, written by another)? GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good question. People apologize sometimes not because they agree with the accusation but simply because someone misinterpreted their actions or took them more seriously or personally than intended. People apologize when they bump into someone accidentally but that doesn't mean they meant to do it, even if the other person is offended. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, they apologize in an attempt to salvage their political career. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's 1 possibility for sure, another is that their advisor(s) told them to apologize as the best way to deal with the matter. I have no idea why she apologized. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be involved in an edit war with another editor. I've asked the other editor to consider the options laid out at dispute resolution. Please be aware that editors can be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the WP:3RR line. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ok thanks, I'll try to converse with other ed on the article talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Several sections of this article have been arbitrarily changed by you despite the sections being subject to a WP:3RR review which you lost. Prior to making further changes I suggest you discuss on the talk page prior to making arbitrary changes. I've referred this to Paul Erik in an effort to resolve the dispute. DSatYVR (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Rob Ford
Hello, given the number of edit reverts you have made on this article recently you are in violation of WP:3RR and may be in danger of being blocked from further editting. Before going off half-cocked on removing content from this article, I think the onus should be on you to justify your position on the talk page before removing content. Thanks, EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm responding on the Rob Ford talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at George Smitherman
As I've requested of you previously, please do not edit war. You have other dispute resolution options available to you. Thank you. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * its a non-issue, i inserted fresh content and reinserted it twice over 2 days,I think, when it was removed for subjective reasons.And by previously do you mean like 5 months ago? what's up? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If another editor reverts, in good faith, an addition you have made, the usual course of action (the advice from the policy page on Consensus) is not to revert back, but to initiate discussion. It's a collaborative project, and this kind of advice is intended to encourage a collaborative atmosphere of editing. As for me, it was rather over-the-top to preface my comment to you with "As I've requested of you previously" (five months ago), so I apologize for that. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rick Sanchez
The use of verbatim, unattributed quotations in articles is considered plagiarism. Whenever you incorporate the exact text of a source into an article, please provide appropriate attribution in the form of quotation marks,, or similar. Please note that addition of non-free text, without attribution as a direct quotation, is considered to be a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. (Excessive and/or unnecessary use of non-free text, even when correctly attributed, might still run afoul of the non-free content policy and guideline, and be considered a copyright violation.) Also, Wikipedia style guidelines discourage the excessive use of quotations, even when correctly attributed. All closely paraphrased text must adhere to the same attribution, non-free content, and copyright standards as verbatim quotations. I notice that you have added verbatim and closely paraphrased non-free text to Rick Sanchez without attribution as a direct quotation, which I believe to be inconsistent with the previously described policies. Your text:


 * "Sanchez said he tried to help Smuzinick and flag down other motorists, eyewitnesses claim Sanchez ignored Smuzinick and loudly told police and bystanders that blood tests would hurt his public image."

The original text from the source:


 * "Though Sanchez says he tried to aid Smuzinick at the scene of the accident and flag down motorists, eyewitnesses claim the anchorman ignored the injured man and loudly told police and bystanders that blood tests were pointless, and would hurt his public image."

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if you have added other verbatim and/or closely paraphrased non-free texts without attribution as direct quotations to Rick Sanchez or any other article, please rewrite this material in your own words, or remove it at your earliest possible convenience. Thanks. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have responded on Peter Karlsen's talk page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns
The section immediately above prompted me to review some of your other contributions. I see that you uploaded the photo at File:Rford.jpg and declared that it is in the public domain, but I can see no evidence that this is the case. Mr.grantevans2, please take utmost care that you are not introducing copyright violations into Wikipedia. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok it was my first photo upload and the "common property" license seems to apply and that license does not seem to require permission, or does it? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Photographs are under copyright (held, by default, by the photographer) unless they've specifically been placed in the public domain. The City of Toronto's website has not done that; on the contrary, there is actually a copyright notice at the bottom of the very page from which you obtained the image. I've asked you to take the utmost care with this, as copyright violations put the encyclopedia at risk. Yet you make this comment which appears to me as doing the very opposite of what I suggested that you do. Can you please return to that discussion and change your comment. Arguing "Since it belongs to the City of Toronto that makes it common property" (and therefore in the public domain) is incorrect. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck my instruction to you, with apologies. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok,thank you very much, no problem. I will rescind the other thing. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Ford
Hi. Just to let you know I reverted your removal of the comment about Ford's sister being a drug addict, because it was supported by the cited source - and you did not leave a reason for its removal in the edit summary. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw your latest comment - fair enough. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)