User talk:Rgrant/Archive 20081129-20090420

God

Please see Fourteen unanswerable questions. The question of a creator is not one of them. Also, please undo your alteration of the Wallace quote. I quoted the original faithfully as you can verify. Mitsube (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

response here - Rgrant (talk) 09:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Post Archival Edit: Above linked response deleted without archival, but visible in User_talk:Mitsube history - Rgrant (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your collaboration. I think the mention of "mu" was useful. Regarding the concept of a creator, this sutta is interesting. There is another one in which a particular brahma god thinks that he is the creator and is mocked for it, but I can't locate it right now. Mitsube (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Mitsube's issue...

Please kindly check User_talk:Mitsube#Very_bad_editing_style.... Thanks. NazarK (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Delmore effect

Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuZemike 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY on Piracy in Somalia

Thank you for contacting me. Now let me quote for you the relevant policy on this issue:

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Since the edit I originally removed was of an editor literally interpreting firsthand for readers what the UNEP report (i.e. the primary source) stated and sourcing that interpretation directly to the UNEP report itself, that is obviously and very much a WP:PRIMARY vio. It's as simple as that. Middayexpress (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

thank you for responding. please note these further qualifications on primary sources:

"The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event" [...] "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."

— from WP:PRIMARY

first, the UNEP report does not offer an insiders view on the earthquake. it is an agency report collecting a huge amount of information, and presents as broad an overview as is possible. by that standard it acts as a secondary source. second, UNEP did not investigate the matter of toxic dumping, relying only on hearsay, as anyone can verify. it's a simple conclusion from qualifying the claim using the simple prelude "reportedly...". - Rgrant (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)