User talk:BruceGrubb

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 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 Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia, 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 ^{talk|contribs} 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 ^{talk|contribs} 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am following the MoS: Wikipedia: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)

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)

Hello, BruceGrubb. You have new messages at EyeSerene's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Further reply on my talk page. EyeSerene^talk 08:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

MonaVie Article

Hi thanks for your help on the Neutrality noticeboard I had no idea that article carried so much weight in the articles POV and proved without a doubt that everything in the lead paragraph is the truth. I left a reply on the board again can you reply?

If we are to resolve the edit war I just need to know if there are any other sources there or if it is just that one that I need to look over better. Thanks DavidR2010 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)DavidR2010DavidR2010 (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV noticeboard

Are you guys still holding a discussion. If not aren't you suppose to close it? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of others' comments

If you believe your removal of the collapse templates in this edit is appropriate somehow, please follow WP:DR rather than edit-warring over it. You are interfering with others' comments, not your own, even in your prior removal of them here. Note that in response, I collapsed only my own comments. If you believe I don't have the right to do so, follow WP:DR and get some consensus on your side. The second time I did this, I simply restored the collapse templates, as all the material in them was either my own comments or added by others while the templates were already in place. See WP:TPO --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As someone who has edited Horror comics, you may have an opinion on a merger proposal being discussed on its talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction and Comment. ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism. She was banned for socking. Three years ago, ITL was first blocked, then blocked indefinitly, then banned permanently for socking. ITL is now a ban evader writing GA articles for Wikipedia. In November 2010, she had an article passed at FA as "Susanne" something or other. She then submitted another article for FA review and it was discovered then that she was a sock. She was banned again as a sock/ban evader -- not as a plagiarist. Tenebrae is now rewriting one of her early articles "Horror comics in the United State, 1946-1954. First, Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. Essentially, the job is to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process. He is not doing this. Instead, he is writing a new article using his own sources. Secondly, he needs to record the changes he makes at this artiicle at the appropriate listing at CCI to prevent other editors from picking up the article for revision and to alert those who are managing this list that work is being done on this article. Thirdly, he is using very questionalbe sources. The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book. None whatsoever. One could just as easily say comic books are descendants of Greek vase paintings depicting gorgons and sphinxes. The passage in the article is actually a "fringe theory" of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school in New York City. Wikipedia does not publish fringe theories. Bissette is not a scholar, although he presents himself as one. Tenebrae cites him to some weird sort of promotional blurb that offers a movie of Bissette "lecturing" on horror comics. There's some sort of fee involved. What ever this business is, it is not a reliable, scholarly source. And the sad fact is this entire article could be sourced to reliable, scholarly sources from academic presses rather than these unscholarly, "fanboy" type things that are out of print and difficult to locate. I hope some others will get on this case about this. DoverWheels (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

DoverWheels has been ruled as a sockpuppet of the original creator of the article and can be safely ignored--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag

All OR issues aside, the {undue} tag has nothing to do with facts or even verification. It's about WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT and the question is whether mentioning a fact is giving too much attention to it, more than reliable sources do, and in a way which gives the impression the fact is seen as more important than sources see it. Of course, there's too little weight as well as too much, so it depends on the sources, the claim, and editorial discretion. Ocaasi ^c 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

More work.

In addition to your anthropological excursion at Weston A. Price, I thought you might be interested in expanding/checking Weston A. Price Foundation, which is in need of some attention, as well as Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation, which I just started and needs it even more. Also, I noticed that Dental_extraction#History makes zero mention of any craze or controversy ever. The article is like a Dental office pamphlet. Maybe you'd want to try some conservative additions regarding the history of tooth extractions and any controversy or criticism that surrounded/surrounds it. Cheers, Ocaasi ^c 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard

Sorry to bother you, but you left a comment on the Reliable sources noticeboard a few years ago under the heading Is thepunksite.com a reliable source for punk bands? I recently came across your comment and left a response to it. When you have time, can you please take a look at it?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation of BLPs closed

An arbitration case regarding of Manipulation BLPs has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

1. Editors who edit biographies of living persons and other articles referring to living persons are reminded that all editing of these articles must comply with the biographies of living persons policy and with the principles set forth in this decision;
2. Administrators and other experienced editors are urged to take a proactive approach in addressing violations and alleged violations of the BLP policy, and to watchlist the BLP noticeboard and participate in discussing and resolving issues raised on that noticeboard;
3. To the extent that parties to this case have been engaged in protracted disputes and quarrels with other parties, the feuding parties are urged to avoid any unnecessary interactions with each other, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution;
4. If disputes concerning editing of biographical articles by parties to this case persist, appropriate dispute resolution methods should be pursued. To the extent possible, such dispute resolution should be led and addressed by editors who have not previously been involved in the disputes. If a specific serious dispute persists and other means of dispute resolution do not resolve them, a new and specifically focused request for arbitration may be filed not less than 30 days from the date of this decision.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Weston Price]

BruceGrubb, you have been edit warring over this content for months now. Note that spacing out your reverts over weeks or months does not make it any less of an edit-war, one you are going against established consensus as you well know after numerous trips to various noticeboards. If you insist on edit warring your preferred version into the article against article consensus, I will be forced to report your edit warring to the appropriate noticeboard for sanctions. Please desist. Yobol (talk) 08:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus for your version either, Yobol and this is NOT the proper place to discuss it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you chose to revert, once again, (this time while logged out), I have filed a edit war report here. Yobol (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

Bruce, in of your edits on Nielsen Ratings, one of the sentences just doesn't parse right to me. The specific part that is unclear is

the Nielsen ratings one TV per household three perhaps four network model

I would have clarified myself but I don't know what you're trying to say.. can you reword it?

I didn't put that in so I have no idea what it trying to say either.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Knight 1909, 1906, etc

Hi. Not sure what the point, or information, was that you were trying to get into the article. Could you concisely describe it here? Just curious. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't trying get anything in the article. I merely pointed out the reference was wrong using RS and the other editors jumped on the assumption and OR bandwagon. However the reasoning that was presented by some editors shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what OR even is and a major disconnect between OR and NOTOR and that is the real issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)