Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 66:
Line 66:
|}
|}
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg-->
|}<!--Template:Welcomeg-->
== Trolling ==
QG,
I'm going to only mention this once and I won't be as forgiving the next time. It's great that we can debate opposing viewpoints re: CAM interventions, but you had better provided good research and evidence for your assertions and not be challenging every edit made on technicalities. Because chiropractic research is mainly conducted by DCs and chiropractic institutions, under your logic they would always be unreliable sources and thus could never be included. If you're going to play by those rules, I will go over the whole article with a fine tooth comb and pick out every single outdated and questionable reference/link. I've got several edits already in mind, but will approach these in time with collaboration with the other editors. Hope we can be mature about this, but by the looks of your screen name, I question your sincerity in advancing any intellectual debate.
] (]) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 20:19, 2 February 2008
Welcome
Hello QuackGuru! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Cool Cosmos20:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to only mention this once and I won't be as forgiving the next time. It's great that we can debate opposing viewpoints re: CAM interventions, but you had better provided good research and evidence for your assertions and not be challenging every edit made on technicalities. Because chiropractic research is mainly conducted by DCs and chiropractic institutions, under your logic they would always be unreliable sources and thus could never be included. If you're going to play by those rules, I will go over the whole article with a fine tooth comb and pick out every single outdated and questionable reference/link. I've got several edits already in mind, but will approach these in time with collaboration with the other editors. Hope we can be mature about this, but by the looks of your screen name, I question your sincerity in advancing any intellectual debate.
EBDCM (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
