This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorticoSpinal (talk | contribs) at 22:31, 7 February 2008 (→your edit did not completely match your edit summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:31, 7 February 2008 by CorticoSpinal (talk | contribs) (→your edit did not completely match your edit summary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
|
User name
Thanks for getting a user name, and for signing. Congrats. -- Fyslee / talk 05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
your edit did not completely match your edit summary
You deleted cited material agreed upon by consensus and then replaced it with different text. Please explain. Quack Guru 03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
There is majority consensus that the contemporary view be included, and you would seemingly agree since you are in favour of adding 'reform' chiropractors into the school of thought subsection. Reform chiropractors are indeed contemporary chiropractors, so I don't follow your logic. EBDCM (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- For example, you have a pattern of deleting references. Quack Guru 05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No, if you read my edits, by and large I add MANY references all of which are MORE RECENT and academically robust from scholarly sites or peer-reviewed research.
You edits, on the other hand... EBDCM (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- But you still deleted references without explanantion. Quack Guru 17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- GQ, I took out some dated and weak references and provided newer ones that are more robust. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry.
- The references were not weak and that is not a reason to also delete the content and replace it with something else. Quack Guru 19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- If you wouldn't mind giving me your scientific credentials, I might be better to assess your credibility. However, based on the majority of your references and your ties to SB it seems that you're simply politicking right now. You also deleted my message to you on your talk page claiming it to be a personal attack when it was a simple note asking if you were editing in good faith. Hard to believe so when you call yourself quack guru.