78:
53:
21:
137:
Yes, and if you look in this family of articles and do some web searching, you will find there is NO Hahnemann Museum in
Stuttgart. There is another medical museum that includes a Hahnemann section. It is this kind of inaccuracy and vagueness of statements, all the way through this family of articles
150:
Well get on with it then! you said the other day you would revise the core article and come to work on these later in due course, so why the sudden change of heart? I do not welcome adam cuerden back as he is the main architect of the mess you noted, so you either get on with this task or forget and
169:
article. But it gets quite tedious, especially when we have to build concensus. I am sure you can tell from all the contrary opinions that this is difficult to do. Many of these people like
Orangemarlin and Adam and Jim are people that I have worked with for months. We have been productive together
124:
I'm sorry, but this article, as it currently stands, is awful. It's full of unexplained jargon, lacks focus, leaps off into tangents - e.g. "It can be viewed at the
Hahnemann Museum in Stuttgart." before actually explaining the main points (e.g. what is succussion supposed to be doing?) It needs a
138:
that makes them so irritating to edit. Everything has to be checked and rechecked, because most of what is written is either nonsense, or subtly distorted, or just plain wrong. And some of it is not even
English.--
164:
alone (second only to TimVickers, who I am rapidly catching up with and who has more than a year worth of editing). And that does not count all the edits on related articles that I have made. I want to fix the
35:
84:
58:
27:
160:
I am doing what I can, off and on. I have the 2nd greatest number of edits overall in 5.5 years of all editors on
170:
and pretty much respect each other and try to cooperate if we can, even if we might disagree on some issues.--
152:
89:
63:
166:
20:
31:
126:
77:
52:
171:
161:
139:
174:
155:
142:
129:
15:
125:LOT of work before it's anywhere near reasonable.
87:, a project which is currently considered to be
8:
47:
49:
99:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Homeopathy
7:
83:This article is within the scope of
14:
151:I will leave it too. who cares?
76:
51:
19:
102:Template:WikiProject Homeopathy
26:This article was nominated for
1:
190:
175:17:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
156:13:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
143:13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
130:02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
71:
85:WikiProject Homeopathy
167:History of homeopathy
105:Homeopathy articles
117:
116:
113:
112:
46:
45:
181:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
80:
73:
72:
67:
55:
48:
34:. The result of
23:
16:
189:
188:
184:
183:
182:
180:
179:
178:
122:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
12:
11:
5:
187:
185:
148:
147:
146:
145:
121:
118:
115:
114:
111:
110:
108:
81:
69:
68:
56:
44:
43:
36:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
186:
177:
176:
173:
168:
163:
158:
157:
154:
153:Peter morrell
144:
141:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
128:
119:
109:
92:
91:
86:
82:
79:
75:
74:
70:
65:
60:
57:
54:
50:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
159:
149:
127:Adam Cuerden
123:
88:
39:
162:homeopathy
96:Homeopathy
59:Homeopathy
32:2007-03-07
120:Untitled
90:inactive
64:inactive
28:deletion
172:Filll
140:Filll
40:keep
38:was
30:on
93:.
66:)
62:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
