User talk:BruceGrubb/Archive 2

Weston Price
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)
 * I see Ronz decided to engage in a personal attack by insinuating that I was drunk or something of the sort. Unfortunately what we appear to have is a case of WP:NOTHERE, and to date we haven't resolved the issues with the Weston Price article. Bruce, I will continue to add content and sources as I find them, and appreciate your collaboration. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. It was the only good faith explanation I could find for your repeated inability to realize what you were doing. --Ronz (talk) 15:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My apology seems to have been overlooked. I hope the strikeout helps. --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Weston Price
Bruce, I would be happy to see what sources on Price I have access through via my academic library. If you have any citations of sources you think would be helpful please leave them on my talk page or email them to me and I'll see what I can do. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Right now I seem to be having luck at getting stuff.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  --Ronz (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted Ronz here. I don't see any BLP concerns.  Ronz you will have to take this to the BLP/N and get a consensus.  Also please take note of WP:TALK and don't delete talk page comments unless they are clearly policy violations themselves.Griswaldo (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've warned you for BLP violations for restoring the information. If you are unfamiliar with BLP, or don't see a violation, take it to BLPN rather than facing a block. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In relation to this mess please see, Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard.  Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griswaldo  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 October 2010

Thanks for responding at BLPN. I've clarifying my meaning and the situation. --Ronz (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How one can botch said case.
As one who wishes the cases weren't botched - unclean hands don't help. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
See WP:DR. An RfC might be helpful.  Will Beback   talk    22:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on Fringe_theories/Noticeboard and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard in addition to Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard I don't know if RfC would help.  The majority of the editors feel that in this case Stephen Barrett is NOT a RS and the WP:BLP claims are unjustified.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

More dispute resolution
Regarding your jump to : I suggest you review WP:DR once again. You've made a huge leap here. I'd hope it's just being made out of anger and frustration, and that you'll rewrite or remove it later. --Ronz (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPN
Re : I don't believe you meant WP:OR. "Continually" is probably best removed or changed as well. Take some time to rewrite your comment. --Ronz (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you are mistaking "continually" for "continuously"; it's a common mistake.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding. I know the difference. It is inaccurate and misleading, as is mentioning WP:OR. So are you going to leave the comment intact? I won't be responding at BLPN if you don't change it. I will explain more, here, if you like. --Ronz (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, BLP and the related policies were originally based upon Florida libel laws. It might be worth taking your comment to WT:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Florida has some interesting libel laws. Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada are the only states that have have criminal libel laws that expressly address the dead which I have added to the Defamation page as examples of regional differences.  The annoying thing about this is the online version of Columbia University Press Encyclopedia states “In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has allowed that only factual misrepresentation is to be considered libel or slander, not expression of opinion. It has also ruled that libel suits may be filed across state lines, not only in the state where the plaintiff lives” but they don't tell you what case(s) are involved, which state's laws would be used, or what the limits on such cases would be.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Do you mind if I copy your BLPN comment on Georgia laws to WT:BLP? --Ronz (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a little rewording and put it in myself.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI re: Ronz
In case you weren't notified, there is an incident under discussion and review on issues your were involved in. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 12:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ronz got off the hook. Oh joy!! I'm done. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ORN
I have started a thread at the above noticeboard with regards to your recent additions. . Yobol (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Communication
Did I do or say something that made you decide not to speak to me? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No, just been doing a bucket load of research trying to put together just what focal infection theory actually was using contemporary reliable sources...and getting more confused the more I research.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay because I asked you a question and you never responded, but responded to other things on the talk page. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 16:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the Price article. Why you think another doctor from Quackwatch is not biased amazes me. Seems to me they are out to sell books. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 02:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I evaluated the publisher not the content. Stephen Barrett was self-published while the Jarvis stuff is coming through what looks like a very reliable publisher.  The important thing now is the wording.  If it is one of those "according to", "based on", "so-and-so says" quotes it may not be worth much but if Jarvis is presented as a reference then there is not much to do.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Jarvis review
Would you like a copy? I can email it to you if you want it. Send me a wiki email and I will attach it to the response. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we have other issues before taking on the Jarvis review. Quite frankly the information on focal infection and focal infection theory and if they different or FIT is simply an extreme outgrowth of the other is unclear.  Everything seems to point to the later but better contemporary sources (to Price) that explains the two is needed--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Reading Jarvis was quite enlightening on other fronts.  Barrett's points on nutrition are just a parroting of Jarvis, with less nuance.  That makes sense given the relationship between the two I guess, but now I know where Barrett got his information from.  Also, I'm not sure how much you care about this, but Jarvis makes comments that could be construed as "eugenic" in nature.  I mention this because I remember ScienceApologist immediately finding a source that said that about Price and then attacking him for it on the FT/N.  He has a section called "Survival of the Fittest" in which he states -- "Family counseling that encourages young couples who may pass defective genes to their offspring to adopt children instead is one answer to the problem," and "[s]ickle cell anemia can be thwarted in the same fashion as diabetes, through genetic counseling".  Anyway my point isn't to dismiss Jarvis for saying these things, but to point out the irony.Griswaldo (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand someone of Price's time saying this but it is disturbing to hear someone of the modern age writing this. Furthermore that comment about diabetes is just plain wrong--there are forms of the disease that have little to do with genes and more to do with life style.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the view of "genetic counseling" was in 1981, but you are right that it is more disturbing to hear at that time than in the first two decades of the 20th century. As far as I know you are also correct that most diabetes is a product of lifestyle and not genetics.  How well known was that in 1981?  I think Jarvis suffers from the same advocate's zeal that Barrett does, unfortunately. If not that then he might have some interests at stake, one can never count that out.  If you read the review he is expressly aiming his cudgel at the emerging "health food industry", which I'm sure was and still is filled with some quackery.  But in doing so I think he fails, like Barrett, to sort out the uncontroversial and sensible nutritional theories of someone like Price (and the contemporaneous health food industry) from the less reliable and more faddish claims.  For instance, if you're going to critique vitamin overindulgence then you ought to remind your readers that the medical community still does believe that vitamins at more moderate levels are beneficial.  Ugh.Griswaldo (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Diet as a known factor in treating diabetes goes all the way back to the 1870s (French physician Bouchardat) but the first main difference (type 1 and type 2) was not known until 1959. Strangely google does not produce anything regarding diabetes if you search for works before 1970 so I don't know if diet was suggested as a preventive measure or not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Genetic counseling is much more benign than eugenics. Eugenics operated at the 'breeding' level, often from outside authorities who would decide which people were worthy of procreation.  Genetic counseling is the idea that a) couples should be aware of their genetic profiles so they can appropriately make decisions based on that risk; b) fetuses with certain genetic traits could be planned for, or if necessary aborted (that's always controversial, but a different issue); and c) that people could understand how their genetics would influence their health, particularly their conditions later in life.  This is not eugenics revived, it is eugenics reformed, and it operated and operates at the individual level of the patient as an informed consumer.  I don't think there's anything here on this one.  People get genetic counseling all of the time, increasingly.  If you had a, say, 50% chance or better (even 100% chance) that your potential child would have a horrific, chronic, or fatal condition, not having that child would probably be more humane than the alternative--or at least it's a reasonable proposition. Ocaasi (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is genetic counseling was used by the Nazis as part of their whole eugenics project to make sure there were no throwbacks or abnormalities (aka "undesirables") in their planned recreation of the Master Race. Like any tool it can be used or abused.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have a look at the article on Eugenics you'll see it defined thus -- Eugenics is the "applied science or the biosocial movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population," usually referring to human populations. The problem Jarvis is describing is population wide, not individual.  He's not saying that individuals can solve the problem of not having to deal with offspring who have certain diseases through genetic counseling.  He's saying that genetic counseling can help society solve the problem of increasingly defective populations with diseases that have a genetic cause.  Now I'm not trying to compare this to other specific theories of eugenics, but on a basic level this is eugenics.  As far as I know, the notion that genetic counseling is a solution for disease prevention in large populations is no more or less extreme than the views held by Price back in the day either.  The irony remains.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the key there is used by the Nazis, and not merely because they were evil. What makes genetic counseling not eugenics is the locus of control.  If it's the patient/consumer/individual, there is no coercion and no legal violation of individual rights (except, perhaps for the fetus, which again is another issue).  The tool is not merely agnostic depending on its use, but on its user.  Where the user is society, it's a collectivist, racialist mess.  Where the user is the recipient, the chance for abuse is greatly reduced to the particular biases of one or two people and their doctor/counselor.


 * Now, there are some interesting questions, like, can an HMO/Insurer require a certain kind of genetic course of action; e.g. not cover the illness of a child which was born with a genetically predictable illness. But that is so far not within the realm of public acceptability.  This is a thorny issues, but it's more about the future than the past.  Genetics today actually has the ability to inform and save lives based on a rationalized science and not some phony invention of the ruling class/elite.  We know a lot more; we pay much closer attention; we have on the whole more evolved attitudes about both individual and group rights.  I don't see genetic counseling being much of a problem unless the world was going to a place that would be a bigger problem altogether.


 * Griswaldo, sickle-cell anemia is a much different situation than systematically eliminating 'retards' or 'black people'. It's an attempt to let patients decide for themselves to avoid potentially difficult conditions. He's recommending adoption, not sterilization or genocide.  If a person is planning to have a child with a chronic or fatal genetic condition, they need genetic counseling, at the least to plan how to deal with it.  Choosing to adopt instead is eugenics, by its original meaning and not the perverted one which has been its fate throughout the 20th century.  Now, that possibility always remains, but there is much greater vigilance today.  I don't quite see the irony. Ocaasi (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ocassi, I think you're confusing genetic counseling, as it is practiced today with the actual suggestion Jarvis is making, that genetic counseling of a certain type should be promoted on a social scale to prevent people from having children because of genetics. However you slice it that is eugenics. It is by definition eugenics. I understand that "eugenics" usually gets invoked only when there are other serious ethical concerns involved, like the practices you mention above. Eugenics, as a basic principle ought not to be confused with particular applications of eugenics that may have widely different ethical implications from each other. Where does that leave Jarvis' statements? I'm not sure, but just to be clear he's going well beyond simply promoting genetic counseling as a consumer option for individuals. He's promoting genetic counseling with a specific purpose or end as a social good. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see Jarvis in the light you've just described, as advocating a broader social goal, and it's a good point that when people say eugenics they really mean eugenics (+ something terrible).  I still think that "Family counseling that encourages young couples who may pass defective genes to their offspring to adopt children" is drastically different.  Family counseling... adoption?  Those are child's play compared to what was proposed in previous decades.  They are still independent, individual, non-invasive, non-judgmental, and non-racial (though sickle-cell is not evenly distributed).  There might be a societal goal underlying it, but the tools are still rooted in individual choice.  So it is eugenics, but it seems like benign eugenics, maybe even bene-eugenics.  I don't think we disagree that much, though. Ocaasi (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Price
Regarding the collapse templates, I think Ronz has given a good explanation above. As for the draft you posted on my talk page, I understand that you think Ingle is discredited, but even then it should still be mentioned. We're not here to pick the one right answer: we're here to report all significant answers even when they disagree with each other. That's the essence of the neutral point of view. You might try proposing language that would describe the dispute comprehensively, without picking sides.  Will Beback   talk    20:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Ingle that NONE of the sources I have found support the claims it is making--it is ONE source against what is now seven and still counting. Strangely in a 2009 book Ingle PDQ Endodontics the preface jumps from 1935 to 2000 with NO talk about anything between.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV, which I suggest you read carefully, requires that we include all significant points of view, with weight proportional to their prominence. Some views are of minor importance but are still significant in which case they need to be mentioned without dwelling on them too much. It doesn't mean they should be ignored. Only views that are truly insignificant or "fringe" should be left our entirely.   Will Beback    talk    22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The key word there is significant. As I pointed out in the talk page when this original came up is that Silverman, Sol; Lewis R. Eversole, Edmond L. Truelove (2002) "Essentials of oral medicine" PMPH usa; Page 159 stated "Additionally, recent evidence associating dental infections with atherosclerosis and other chronic diseases has also helped resurrect the focal infection theory."  Guest who now publishes Silverman's book; you got it McGraw hill.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, you've done all of this great primary research regarding Price. Why not put it together in an article about the evolution of FIT and Price's role in it, and submit it to publication at the Weston A. Price Foundation, or another nutritional website, or nutrition/dental/medical journal. Then we could actually reference it! Ocaasi (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Idea.


 * Sadly it is not that simple. The Weston A. Price Foundation is hardly a WP:RS, nutritional websites have much the same problem, and as a general rule nutrition/dental/medical journals are not interested in historical pieces but rather new discoveries.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, thanks for the offer, but no. During the last episode, you guys blew me off when I tried to help. You can't disrespect me, and then call for help, sorry. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay Bruce, to your post, during that time when I was heavily involved I got the feeling that you and Ludwig either didn't like what I was saying or my efforts to help with the arbitration efforts. So I eventually tapered off and quit close to the end for that reason. I felt a bit undercut because I had helped quite a bit in editing that article (and related articles) initially, and didn't sense the mutual support during the arbitration. But I'm not here to pick a fight, or anything of the sort. But I was definitely for stronger action by an Admin, and felt pretty much alone in that respect; because I didn't believe that the promise to change was sincere. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that stronger action from Admin was needed but if you go back over Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard you will see it was Ludwigs2 who started it and it was I who was pointing all the three ring circus things that was going on in that article. Griswaldo, Ludwigs2, Lambano, Silverseren, Hans Adler, and I more or less agreed what Ronz was doing was wrong and IIRC by that time only Griswaldo and you were still commenting on the article.  Griswaldo and Ludwigs2 had some misconceptions about there being two FIT largely because the material on it is such a mess and as I pointed we really need more to better flesh out the biography.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Plea for change in behavior
BruceGrubb, please let me give you some advice on how to change your behavior to better conform with what Wikipedia needs of all editors:


 * 1) You need to accept consensus, even when it is against what you believe is true. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and is based on consensus of mutliple editors. For instance, you post to WP:RSN about the reliability of a source, the consensus is that it is reliable, and you then proceed to remove it as a source from the article. This is inappopriate.  Also inappropriate is inserting, then re-inserting, basically the same contested material over and over again over objections over the course of months.
 * 2) You need to adjust the way you discuss on talk pages. The way you have proceeded, multiple quotes, in lengthy posts that often do not address the points of the person you are responding to, is disruptive.  You need only look at the comments of the editors in the recent AN/I thread to see that it is not only me that feels this way.
 * 3) You need to place emphasis on secondary sources over primary ones. Your reliance on primary sources to find the "truth" has led to multple SYNTH violations as well as clearly taking quotes out of context.

I hope you take this in the way it was intended (as a piece of advice from a fellow editor to improve our interaction) rather than a personal attack. You obviously have put a lot of effort into this topic, but that is no excuse for violations of our guidelines. Yobol (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm not nor do I care much for policy wonks, but I have to say that you could probably compromise a bit more in the dialogue; try not to overwhelm with content. Ludwig summarized what he thinks you're getting at pretty well, and I also think that Price was onto something, though he may not have conducted the best research or maybe presented it in the best way. Given the state of the art now compared to then, I think Price was ahead in his time in thinking but behind in the ability to prove it (re: FIT). Pulling lots of teeth wasn't all Price's fault, though some seem to think so. That said, it makes it difficult to tie all this cohesively together with the old sources at hand. I'm not sure the post-Price critiques of his work are all that substantive beyond a lot of negative opinions about Price's work. But I'm not sure there is a way to prove that either.

TO ALL: On the other hand, consensus on content should not be reach through policy gamesmanship. Adhering to policy is NOT the end all at WP (WP:IAR). And policy has far and away been overemphasized on this matter since last September. Policy is also not a hammer to be wielded about as the primary method in building articles. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 01:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note that suggesting the consensus of editors across several months of editing and discussion and across multiple noticeboards as being based on "gamesmanship" is not helpful, and that invokation of WP:IAR is not likely to make the situation any better. Yobol (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think you get the point, whether you want to admit it or not. I was involved enough in those noticeboards to know where the gamesmanship was. But you can ignore the spirit of WP:IAR if you like. Nuff said. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 02:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The spirit being rules aren't meant to be followed blindly; however, I think, and would suspect others would agree, they weren't being followed blindly but to improve the article (and in particular to keep most of the additions Bruce was suggesting from the article as they made the article worse). Yobol (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how holding on to one source that can be demonstrated to be talking nonsense is "improving" an article. The continual harping on "this is a biography on Weston Price" to keep in misleading (or at least poorly worded) medical information refuted by a later publication by the same author while keeping out direct quotes from the man because people might misread them doesn't help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Need administrator advice
Your posting is so circumspect about the problem that I can't follow it. If you don't want to post names and specific behaviors then please send me an email. I don't have the patience to do the detective work to figure out what you're talking about. ;)   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't researched the whole thing, but I suggest that some time away from the keyboard may reduce tensions. If the problem is still recurring then follow the dispute resolution procedures. WP:DR.   Will Beback    talk    21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. 

Please instead learn to follow WP:FOC, WP:BATTLE, WP:TALKNO, WP:AVOIDYOU, WP:TE, WP:DE, and WP:LETGO. Your repeatedly bringing this up is disruptive to the discussions, undermines what policy-based arguments you have in those discussions, and demonstrates an obsessive need for you to retaliate against others when disputes are long past. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a personal attack to point out behavior performed by one editor that is similar to behavior that was going on in the past. As Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive695 showed simply claiming a wikipedia violation doesn't work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So we agree on every other concern I've brought up, especially "demonstrates an obsessive need for you to retaliate against others when disputes are long past?" --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not retaliation to point out similarities of behavior between editor and I have asked an administrator to look at what to my eyes seems be to harassment of myself and other editors via Wikilawyering.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring the relevant policies and guidelines, and playing victim now for being called out on your behavior. Typical. Please drop your obsessive harassment and move on. I'm not flattered by your attention.
 * Granted, I don't know what is malice on your part, what is incompetence, and want is just an inability to behave as an adult. Your behavior is disruptive and detrimental to this encyclopedia regardless. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

--Ronz (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stop your meritless complaints, Ronz.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:12, 19 June 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)