Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:44, 18 October 2010

Archives

Archive 1

RfC

Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin 16:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

These are excellent Bruce. Will definately be using them in my defense. Many thanks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Method

Burke's in Day the Universe raised an interesting question-- does data drive a theory or does a theory determine what is data.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

MLM

Thanks, Bruce, for your good and continuing work in preserving the Multi-Level Marketing page. DougHill (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD

There's a straight-forward guide at WP:AFDHOWTO. Let me know if you have any questions.   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

New Christ Myth Theory FAQ

User:BruceGrubb/CMT_Material/FAQ That I am working on.

Chick publications

Thanks for helping to clean up the article! The tone was beginning to sound a bit like the material being criticized! (I was worried that Chick might issue a pamphlet on Misplaced Pages! And it would be totally factual!  :) 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, the article still needs citations, just like every other article in Misplaced Pages, whether "the sun shines during the day" or "this way is up." Making mere "claims" to refute Chick "claims" is hardly encyclopedic. One loud voice against another. Please respond on article discussion page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi Bruce, there's a question for you at Talk:Christ myth theory#I Howard Marshall, in case you missed it. Cheers, SlimVirgin 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Templates

Bruce, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't add citation templates to that article. Writing the refs out by hand makes loading time, particularly for preview and diffs, much faster, especially when there are such a large number of references. Also, per the MoS, punctuation goes after ref tags, and it's really not good form to place ref tags inside sentences if it can be avoided. SlimVirgin 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am following the MoS: Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#Inline_citations--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

ethnology

I think by "historical anthropology" you mean "ethnohistory" and not "ethnoloby." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The three are closely related to the point they are called by the other names. When I learned anthropology the term was "historical anthropology" with "ethnology" thrown in for a pseudonym.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to Weston Price, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering a quote by a DDS is being flag as well the template IMHO doesn't belong there in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. Did you mean, "is being flagged"?

I started a discussion on the matter . I hope you'll respect the tagging and continue to participate in the discussion. I'm glad you've chosen not to make further comments like "Claiming that quote is OR and NPOV is insane."

Please note, I'm claiming that the introduction and juxtaposing of the information you added with Barrett's criticism is original research and not neutral. I've since brought up the concern that this is the use of Misplaced Pages as a battleground. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable--he is NOT a DDS and the article in question is a blog. Further research has shown that even the claim regarding focal infection theory is in error--a 2009 Wiley textbook said the theory never truly died and 2004 and 2006 Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers textbooks state that "there has been a resurgence of interest in oral focal infection theory" and "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..." So the rebuttal is to a reference that in reality likely shouldn't have been there in the first place.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"The problem is Barrett himself is very questionable" that's your personal perspective, and the main problem that I in all this. --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, please ask yourself whether you may be trying to keep questionable claims in an article about history of dentistry just because you think Barrett is infallible. He is very obviously not even an expert in that area. Hans Adler 23:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you violate WP:BATTLE. --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn't notice that it was Hans Adler writing that.

Please read and follow WP:BATTLE.

I am puzzled by your response. Do you think Barrett is an authority on history of dentistry? Do you think Weston Price is a an article about fringe? Or maybe you think these are trick questions that have nothing to do with the article? Hans Adler 16:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by your response. I've never said any of those things, so why are you asking? --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to find out why you think edits such as this are appropriate. It appears to me that the attention which the article is giving to the Weston A. Price Foundation violates WP:UNDUE anyway. I don't see a need to add to the problem by mentioning the self-published attacks by a man who is not an expert on medical history and a rebuttal by that dubious foundation. It looks to me like an attempt to extend the fringe battleground to an article where it simply doesn't belong. Hans Adler 17:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hans Adler, for not continuing your inappropriate line of questioning. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What "inappropriate line of questioning"?!? Hans Adler, Griswaldo, and I all agree that in this instance Barrett does not fulfill the WP:SPS requirements--nothing has been presented that he is an expert in dental history.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've clarified my comment above to answer your first question.

No, there's no agreement on SPS at all. Please be more careful in how you summarize discussions. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope we have now reached the point where you explain your position on the problem of spamming fringe topics into marginally related medical history articles. Hans Adler 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated misrepresentations of the situation are disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 16:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Your refusal to engage in reasoned debate is disruptive. Hans Adler 17:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you misrepresent the situation. WP:LETGO. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No, not that kind of situation again. I had totally forgotten about your WP:TLW problem. Hans Adler 17:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

PS: I see you found an elegant solution to the problem. Hans Adler 17:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in Weston Price

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Buxton University

Hi BruceGrubb,

I saw you commented on my claim about wes.org's WENR newsletter not being a reliable source. You seemed to be one of the people who actually talked some sence. I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton University and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources)

I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in that WENR "article". That is quite a claim, so how is this mediocre WENR newsletter sufficient grounds for this to appear in encyclopedic content? I ask you, its crazy. Would appreciate your two-cents on the Buxton University article discussion page as what goes in that article seems to be getting controlled by people with an agenda. Thanks Monsig (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Regarding your comment . Yes, I was extremely reluctant to respond on the article talk page to The Founders Intent repeated disruptions. I expect he was editing drunk or the like. I've collapsed the side conversation, as he doesn't appear able to control himself when such inappropriate content is removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)