User talk:Mudshake

I assume you're the same 'NotoriousQRG' that this post is written about: Evidence of this can be found at this blog site: I'm assuming you're ok with me including this as it is presumably the same form of evidence that you will be using in attempt to support your claims. Mudshake (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake I have removed the link to that blogpost as it contains personal data about me which seems unfair NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are obviously either Eric Anderson, Grant Peterson or Mark mcCormack. I was outed because I use a pseudonym. My real name is Elly Tams. What's yours? NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotoriousQRG. I thought the point of wikipedia was to report on generally-accepted knowledge, not to advance your own argument. Do you have any evidence for this other than your own writings? For example, the work of other peer-reviewed articles that support your position? If not, it is surely inappropriate to change the page because you wish it were so. Mudshake (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Mudshake[reply]

Yes I do have evidence. And how do you know I write about this subject? Peer reviewed articles are not the only place where 'evidence' can be found. Metrosexuality is such a huge phenomenon that it is in the general sociological 'imagination'. As you can see there is a wikipedia page for the 'metrosexual'that is very big and well referenced. I do not WISH anything. I know a lot about this subject though. And as I said I will find some more references and get back to you. NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotoriousQRG. Well, I've read his book Inclusive Masculinty. Have you? I've just re-edited that as you made a mistake (again). Anderson says to Simpson that metrosexuality was useful to his participants, not to the development of his research. Mudshake (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake[reply]

Hi Yes I have read it. I have also read all of Mark Simpson's books, from 1994 - 2011, which have shown clearly to me how Simpson's work is of vital importance to Anderson's. The fact that Anderson does not acknowledge that is obviously the issue here.I have stuff to do I will go and find some more references and return to this later NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NotoriousQRG. Yep, there were. The argument that was written there (I didn't know it was yours). Is very contentious. A close reading of Anderson's work demonstrates that he doesn't view metrosexuality as an important concept in the development of his empirically-grounded research findings. More significantly, the citations provided simply didn't provide proof of the claims made. For example, the reference where you claim Anderson gives (huge) credit to Mark Simpson, is a link to Mark Simpson's site where Simpson talks about the link between the work -- not Anderson. I'm sure you didn't intend to be misleading, but the whole section was. Mudshake (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)mudshake[reply]

Hi Mudshake you seem to know a lot about Anderson's work. Yes Anderson does comment in the comments below the line on Simpson's post - I quoted Anderson directly. I have put that quote back in, but have not reinstated the section about metrosexuality. Best wishes NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HI Mudshake - there were no factual errors in my section on Eric Anderson's wikipedia page. Please could you go to the talk page and explain why you removed it? Thanks NotoriousQRG NotoriousQRG (talk) 16:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing!

Hello! Mudshake, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]