3385:
I had been an integral part of this process since Jan 08. Ironically, before
Eubulides brought his concerns to MastCell I was wondering where to go for my concerns. Also, I'm not very good at using html formatting stuff and cannot organize my case as well as other experienced wikipedians which puts me at a disadvantage right off the bat. Lastly, what is the protocol when someone complains for a block? Should the accused not be called into discuss the case and present their side? That kind of system would seem to be much more beneficial than what occured in my case. Lastly, just because an editor does well editing certain pages does not mean that the editing style made on a different page, such as chiropractic will fly. I have very serious concerns regarding how an editor can unilaterally decide what the best study is, what gets to stay and rejected (despite concerns from other editors) and how something should get written. I have a few friends who are pursuing their PhD degrees and I have taken a few research courses in university too and know how to critically evaluate the literature. I very much resent the fact that someone can call a reference "weak" when myself and others know it far surpasses the criteria for verifiability. I feel that a lot of very good citations are being omitted on technicalities and there is some good, high quality chiropractic literature that is being stamped out.
636:. You will not achieve consensus by dismissing other editors because their credentials aren't good enough for you. Also you seem to have misunderstood AGF. QuackGuru obviously has a POV, as do you and me. There is nothing wrong with that. Editors should always do their best to put their POV aside when editing. That said, even if an editor fails to put aside their POV when editing, it doesn't mean they aren't acting in good faith. In fact, very often such people may be acting in good faith, they seriously believe they are improving the encylopaedia, they just aren't because they are not able to put their POV aside. The best example of people who are not acting in good faith is vandals. Someone who repeatedly comes to a page and adds "GEORGE W BUSH SUCKS BALLS" is probably not acting in good faith, they are not trying to improve the encylopaedia. Also, dismissing someone because of their views is definitely a personal attack. I suggest you take a look at
2866:
arthritides, fractures, dislocations, instabilities, bone weakening disorders, tumours, infections, acute trauma as well as various circulatory and neurological disorders. Although most contraindications apply only to spinal manipulation of the affected region, a few emergency conditions, such as visual field defects is an absolute contraindication spinal manipulative therapy. In
February 2008, the World Health Organization sponsored Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders, the largest and most comprehensive study on neck pain, diagnosis, prognosis and safety to date. This included a consensus of the top experts in the world whose findings were collated using a best-evidence synthesis, which addresses risk, prevention, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment risks and benefits. With respect to the association of VBA stroke and cervical manipulation the study concluded:
3503:
et al. study that were 6+ years in the making. When Ernst, for example, is given 2-3 lines in safety and task force 1, you can see where I start to question editorial intent; especially if the editor comes off as being highly educated in appraising literature and weighing it in a fair manner. Anyways, I found this dialogue between you and I to be constructive and again apologize for questioning your ability to neutrally and objectively handle this case. You are a good admin MastCell and it seems that the years of editing has led to some wisdom in terms of approaching certain contentious issues. I hope to follow in the same footsteps; it probably would have been easier had I chosen a less contentious career ;) Regardless, as good faith I will not edit tonight and will turn to you for advice before things escalate again.
2862:
mechanical low back pain syndromes. Cervical spine manipulation (particularly the upper cervical spine) has been a source of controversy. Critics have suggested that spinal manipulation is of limited benefit and a risk factor for vertebral basilar stroke and there needs to be more research to support its use whereas chiropractors have countered that cervical manipulation is a safe, effective and cost-effective alternate to conventional medical management for mechanical back and neck pain syndromes. Spinal manipulation poses a slight risk to the practitioner, particularly to the wrists, shoulder, and lumbar spine which may occur during the 'orientation' phase and the dynamic thrust phase of manipulation although these risk has not been quantified.
1638:
consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question. Thanks!)" You should have known quite well that this was still a highly controversial revert by yourself. There was NOT consensus as your possibly weaselword "seemed" would seem to indicate you knew. In you edit statemnet you suggested that consensus should be achieved before edits are made. Exactly. I'm sure you weren't meaning to be hypocritical, but I'm also sure that you can see you leave yourself open to such an interpretation. In future you should allow at least 24 hours and ideally 48 hours before performing such controversial reverts. Thank you for your cooperation. And like we say, no-one is out to get chiro. We all just want a factual NPOV article.
2296:
when the rest of us counter with peer-reviewed primary and secondary sources. Also, the half decent references you do you are ancient with better, more current and stronger literature that refutes the claims you make. This attempt here to portray me as some vandal and bad editor is seems like a desperate attempt to get me blocked or banned because I have generally being a strong contributor to the chiropractic article which goes against your personal POV (hence the quack guru, right?). Anyways, please desist from spamming my talk page any further and your history here at wikipedia speaks for itself and I'll let the admins decide whether or not your nefarious claims have any merit (they don't).
1448:. It is not acceptable to copy large sections of text from other copyrighted sourced into wikipedia and copyright violations are a very serious thing. If you do want to quote an author, this should be done minimally (usually not more than a sentence or two) and it should be made clear it is a quotation (by using quotation marks and sourcing the information; e.g. According to Bill Gates the author of the study, "Windows is the best OS in the world".). You should only quote an author when it is absolutely necessary, this will usually be when you are mentioning the opinion of the author/s, otherwise the information should be paraphrased and re-written in your own words.
1782:. You have a positive learning curve, and that tendency will serve you very well here. As Dematt can attest, I can work fine even with people who hold opposing POV, as long as there is a collaborative spirit. You and I actually share a number of POV, so that should make it even easier. Keep up the good work, but don't pause or fall back into old habits. Step back from any "warrior" stances and think twice before pushing that "Save page" button. (I speak from bitter experience and wish I always remembered to do that! We're all learning here.) Nice to have you onboard. --
3204:
MastCell's talk page which I explained my actions and provided context to my disagreements with
Eubulides. As a relatively new Wikipedian, I am very perplexed and now skeptical of the seeming randomness of blocking users. QuackGuru and Mccready, for example, are recidivists in that they have been blocked or banned multiple times, and subsequent blocks have lasted a matter of hours if not a few day. Yet my first ever receives an indefinite block and my comments are factual and not personal attacks; if anything it's a play-by-play what is happening on Chiropractic Talk.
2894:
randomness and an overwhelming subjectiveness as to who is labelled as disruptive. Although I will admit I probably deserved a 24 hour block, a 7 day long one without 0 discussion despite the fact I provided a complete rebuttal to
Eubulides, MD claims demonstrates a rather poor decision making algorhythm (if any) that is completely random (i.e. should have a jury of 5 not tied to the article/profession) in any way and a public process should be done where the accused gets to explain). This judge, jury, excutioner BS of a system is completely lame.
3285:
the fence and were very neutral and objective about the matter. Had I known of this I would not have requested another admin look after the case. Jeho, I retracted my statement above; but in the future I would ask that you provide much better clarification for your actions and at least have some kind of discussion or a process of mediation before you throw down the hammer; especially in blocks over 72 hours. So, I will unplug from the project until
Saturday and I look forward to resuming productive editing and collaboration. Aloha!
3041:
me without proper discussion especially with the points raised on MastCell's talk page. Regardless, all the points I raised above are valid and one needs only to look at the talk history to see how
Eubulides and Quack Guru have seized the day and implement their agenda of fear mongering edits and having a double standard with respect to the chiropractic article. If I can make a formal complaint I'd love to do it because I had been intending to do so until Eubulides sneak attack to admin MastCell (whom I owe an apology).
683:) for edit-warring, taking into account his history. However, you're also engaged in edit-warring. You're right at 3 reverts, by my count, with several additional borderline edits in the past 24 hours. I'm going to ask that you back off and slow down on the reverting. If there is really a consensus against Mccready's edit, then others will also revert him - there's no rush. I would strongly suggest limiting yourself to 1 revert per day, voluntarily, for at least the next week or two.
3087:
safety. Also notice how
Eubulides is slowly, but surely striking out all mention of any contrast with medical contrast. Also, after a long debate on philosophy which Eubulides agreed to move Janse to medical opposition he now wants it taken out altogether after his compromise. Yet another example of questionable editing by this particular editor who IMO has been way more disruptive to chiropractic than my own edits on arrival on the wiki chiropractic scene.
3934:
3231:
interest in improving these pages. It's hard when you start out - I used to be quite a bit more... frank than I am now when I was new, and I didn't start in a war zone. I would agree that there are more disruptive agents about, but that doesn't really have a bearing on your conduct. Unfortunately, consistency is a virtue that
Knowledge notoriously lacks. I'm afraid that unblocking you right now would lead to some deeply unproductive exchanges.
3475:) yields many papers from peer-reviewed chiropractic journals that are not indexed in PubMed. Consequently, according to current MEDRS standards these papers do not meet inclusion criteria. I would never bring "weak" chiro literature/journals to to article (for example, articles from Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research) but there are some quality journals that are not indexed but do have very reliable, valid and appropriate content.
1601:. Please slow down and give it at least a day or so before reverting any further. The other editors on the article are reasonable and I don't think anyone's out to make chiropractic look bad; try addressing your concerns on the talk page instead of via edit summary. I'm not going to do anything at this juncture, but further reverting would make you liable to a block. Take a break and move to the talk page to raise your concerns.
2586:
1341:. Unfortunately they were not accompanied by reliable sources. On wikipedia it is not sufficient to write from your personal knowledge without backing that up with reliable sources. Will you please refrain from editing the article while the community considers your recent series of edits. I'm sure you will acknowledge that there may be different views to your own which need to be considered if we are to improve the article.
3629:
1929:
826:
2874:
Furthermore, the authors concluded that the risk of serious adverse effects was, at worst, 6 per 100,000 (0.006%) spinal manipulations. Despite the controversy and skepticism regarding chiropractic spinal manipulation, the World Health
Organization states that " employed skilfully and appropriately, chiropractic care is safe and effective for the prevention and management of a number of health problems."
2646:
3227:
you had expressed concern about possible bias on my part. I was a bit suprised by the 1-week block, but I also believe that if this probation is ever going to be effective, admins need some degree of discretion and so I didn't (and don't) oppose it, though it's not what I would have done. It's a sad fact that blocks tend to make people angrier. That's certainly happened here.
2211:
so be it. I'm not here for pizza and fairy tales. I have a full time job. I know it's rough waters here and am beginning to appreciate some of the perversions and politics at wikipedia but I'm here to provided balanced education on primarily CAM topics for the world to learn about. The research is out there now, and it needs a voice and I intent to provide it.
2870:
age groups. no evidence of excess risk of VBA stroke associated chiropractic care. The increased risks of vertebrobasilar artery stroke associated with chiropractic and physician visits is likely explained by patients with vertebrobasilar dissection-related neck pain and headache consulting both chiropractors and primary care physicians before their VBA stroke."
2391:
safety which many involved editors are trying to come to a consensus. Nevertheless, it is inappropriate to make a mass edit to a controversial section when there in an ongoing effort to come up with text that is suitable to all parties. I hope that you will refrain from adding the edit in question (again) until all parties have reached an agreement.
2353:
3235:
chiropractic - I'm not interested in jumping in there, and I can imagine you feel more strongly than I do about the subject. I'll touch base with
Jehochman about the block. I'd encourage you to touch base with Dematt as he is a role model for many of us and a fount of good advice. Let's revisit this in a few days.
3322:
chiropractic can find the middle ground. I'm waiting to hear from MastCell and Jehochman as to where we go from here. Looking back on it, I made some mistakes but I believe that this blocking issue could have been better handled as well. Hopefully all parties involved learned a lesson. See you soon.
2628:. Your response to the evidence was combative and made me feel that a block was necessary to protect the project from disruption. Please only return to edit areas where you are willing to cooperate with other editors in building a high quality encyclopedia. Knowledge is not for ideological struggle.
1730:
somewhere. You wrote "Please gain consensus on talk page before completely changing the edit in question" and I would agree, but will remind you that you either forgotten this yourself a few times or have taken a very liberal interpretation of it although your tone as of late has definitely improved.
3502:
I strongly resent having a "secondary source" such as Ernst (1 person) published in a medical journal for example trump an executive task force report on neck pain (that is written by a multidiscplinary panel with the involvement of 100+ universities and public health agencies or the original Cassidy
3230:
I see this taking a really unproductive turn and I forsee major problems if you remain as incensed as you currently appear to be and return to editing these pages. I also don't want to see you indefinitely blocked, because I think you're at bottom a good-faith contributor with useful expertise and an
3226:
Let me interject a few things. When I saw Eubulides' post on my talk page, I was inclined to give you a fairly strong warning - because you had stepped pretty far over the line in terms of incivility and personally targeted rhetoric - and leave things at that. I referred the case to Jehochman because
2878:
Interestingly enough, since my block both Eubulides, MD, and Quack Guru have gone on a solo, wild-spree, which was my fear if there was not an important counter-balance to edits on safety provided by a medical doctor who's edits could easily be interpreted as fear mongering (Eubulides has not replied
2865:
Spinal manipulation is a regulated/controlled medical intervention and can only be performed by chiropractors and a limited number of physical medicine professionals. Prior to the adminstration of spinal manipulative therapy, absolute contraindications must be screened out. These include inflammatory
1083:
QuackGuru can be extremely difficult to get along with, so it's best to focus on discussing edits rather than editors. You've tried discussing your concerns on his talk page and he obviously isn't interested in continuing those discussions there. While I've suggested WP:COIN as a good place to take
926:
Will you please revert your revert. I gave good reasons in my edit summary. You have not addressed these reasons. I will expand on them for you. The material deleted was repeated, albeit in a slightly different form, on the main chiro page. You know as well as I do that that material is subject to an
880:
Mccready, for the umteenth time, I'm not abusing you. I have just shredded your argument that's all. I asked you a question and you keep dodging it: how can you claim to be scientific and yet deny any existence of scientific chiropractic and acupuncture? Even other CAM skeptics have suggested that
615:
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
3456:
respond for a day or two and see what other people contribute. There may be editors about who are motivated primarily by a desire to make chiropractic look bad, but I can virtually guarantee that Eubulides is not one of them. If you start name-calling, making personal accusations, and so forth, then
3451:
Unsolicited advice: if you find yourself frustrated with a specific editor, take a step back. There are lots of editors active on these pages, so it's not like things have to degenerate into hand-to-hand combat. Ask for outside opinions, get outside input, and so forth. There's no deadline - a major
3384:
To be frank Jehochman, my main purpose and interest here is to edit chiropractic and anything related to physical/manual medicine. It is my specialization and where I the most expertise in my 8 years of university. Also, we are in the midst of a major review/cleanup of the chiropractic article and
3284:
Finally, some kind of answer to my question. Thank you MastCell. I owe you an apology; I jumped the gun when I suggested that it might not be a good idea for you to oversee Eubulides complaint. In fairness though; I had not seen the discussion on CAM which you raised valid points on both sides of
3086:
Eubulides, along with Quack Guru and now Mccready appear ready for their complete tear down of chiropractic. Interestingly, all sources provided from Eubulides comes from medical journals rather than chiropractic journals (peer reviewed, of course) which is being used to fear monger with respect to
3080:
You are complicit in these actions by failing to acknowledge my rebuttal on MastCell's talk page. This shows a lack of due dilligence and investigation in your part which is why the unblocking request mechanism is so dysfunctional. There is no consensus agreement, no chance for adequate discussion
2915:
As further proof of uncollaborative editing by Eubulides, he has restored 1/2 of the strikeouts of his edits without sufficient justification. It should also be noted that the restored text was disagreed with my a majority of editors which provides more proof that Eubulides' edits and his intent is
1378:
I have just added colons so your comment was indented properly. Please start doing this. It's extremely irritating when you fail to indent properly. Also please stop referring to articles as "wikis". This whole place is Knowledge, which is one wiki. The articles are articles, not individual "wikis".
3470:
I agree with your assessment, MastCell. PC-ness is not a strong suite of mine (I'd rather just get down to the bare bones and spare the fluff so we can get to the point) and prior to this event I had really, really been patient with most of my language. It's tough when you have an editor who acts
3203:
Jeho; I've done a bit of researching and I would like mention that this block and now the indefinite one is completely unjustified according to past precedents and there was no WP:MEDIATION done prior to my blocking. Furthermore, for the 4th time, I had provided a rebuttal to Eubulides' concerns on
3040:
Disagree, Jayron. I'm not using Eubulides affiliations against him. I'm merely stating a fact. His edits are not good are are severely biased AGAINST chiropractic including unilaterally deciding what is an acceptable reference and how it is to be used. Just like how you've unilaterally blocked
2869:
Vertebrobasilar artery stroke is a rare event in the population. There is an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and chiropractic visits in those under 45 years of age. There is also an association between vertebrobasilar artery stroke and use of primary care physician visits in all
2434:
The 208 (IP address) occurs when my EBDCM account times out and I have not noticed that I am not logged in. I have already told admin MastCell of a previous account that is no longer being used and he is aware of it, so no sock puppetry is in play. I stand by all my edits and use only my account.
2295:
Please spare me the theatrics, quack guru. Your edits consistently get reverted because they are weak; both in the written word and the citations you use. The majority of your references are from layman internet cites and you keep trying to push Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch as reputable sources
2210:
It's not a questioning of reverting what I don't like, it's a matter of the size of the edit, it's controversy, and if it has gained consensus. If I have to get a block for maintaining, what I objectively feel in the best interest of the article (and to a greater extent the wikipedia project) then
1664:
That was my one, and only revert that day Mccready which was in line with Mastcell's recommendations. I have read on here that Dematt is a well respected editor and is very knowledgeable about the chiropractic article. So, based on that, and that I found his edit to be more NPOV is why I made the
942:
I disagreed with your revert and before you arrived on the scene that article was stable as well. You have an ongoing history of destabilizing articles. The edit you made altered what was previously a NPOV. I suggest that before you continue editing and being subjected to many reverts by various
3394:
Now that Dematt is back on the scene (I trust his judgment) I think that things will go much more smoothly. I will raise my concerns on talk and if it comes to a stalemate I suppose we can always ask for arbitration of it gets that far. It seems, by and large, we have some good editors there and
3248:
When EBDCM understands how to interact, and when they retract the legal threat a couple posts above, feel free to unblock them, Mastcell. I work this a lot of incorrigible editors who eventually get banned. A commonality is that they were all coddled early on and did not have strict limits set.
2873:
A 2007 study which examined over 50 000 chiropractic spinal manipulations had no reports of serious adverse effects. The most common minor side effect was pain in the head, neck, arm or upper back; and stiffness of the neck, shoulder which occurred after, at worst, 16 in 1,000 (0.016%) treatments.
1637:
EBDCM, following MastCell's post you promised to implement his advice. Yet the very next day, on the very same topic within chiro you reverted another editor. Your edit statement said "The previous edit by Dematt seemed to have consensus and being NPOV whereas your major edit does not. Please gain
631:
QuackGuru's credentials are irrelevant. We don't assess edits based on the credentials of the editors. We assess the edits based on the edits. That is why we need reliable sources to help us assess the edits. Removing referenced material should be done with care and should usually be discussed. If
3589:
is that it is a bit dated; much of the text that it uses to talk about practice styles was written several years ago, so for example it refers to NACM as if it still existed as a viable organization. This datedness is understandable in a long-leadtime textbook but it's something to watch out for.
2854:
In response to the heavy handed block which consisted of 0 talk (and did not even provide a response to my rebuttal of Eubulides, MD, who's edits are severely flawed and critiqued by every chiropractic editor with the exception of quack guru, I will edit here from the sidelines and post editorial
2492:
He wrote several books in the early 90's and held seminars. I followed his vegan diet for quite a while. (lost weight, felt great...and hungry!) His website is glossy and it looks like he sells DVDs and stuff. He is still researching the effect of diet on heart disease, autoimmune disease and the
2390:
Thank-you for the welcome, Quack Guru. As always, I strive to bring high editing, writing and referencing standards that comes from reliable, valid, notable and preferably peer-reviewed research (meta-analyses when possible). The revert in question has to do with an ongoing discussion regarding
3370:
I could unblock you on condition that you not rush straight back to the article where you were in conflict with other editors. Will you agree to edit different topics for at least a week or two, and avoid any sort of personal conflict with those editors? I understand they might do something to
2953:
Eubulides claims that there are many POV in chiropractic according to his list however everything he wants deleted is always a source that supports the efficacy of chiropractic care, in some way shape or form. Furthermore, as a medical doctor, Eubulides' edits and his intention behind them are
2893:
As I am away and unable to edit, it has become apparent that Eubulides agenda is to unilaterally present biased medical papers that question the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of spinal manipulation and chiropractic. Thelitics here at wikipedia are truly abhorrent and there appears to be a
1463:
Thanks for the suggestion; but the issue in question was rectified with better formatting. The section in question was properly referenced although significant lobbying has been done to remove it (potentially because it negates their personal beliefs). Regardless, experienced editors who have
724:
Regarding your recent comment on my talk page, I'm aware there has been a "paradigm shift" in chiropractics, but I don't know its scope - questions like "what proportion of countries are undergoing it," "what proportion of chiropractors are undergoing it," and "when did it start and is it still
705:
My concern, right now, is with the very vague word "some." The assertion that "some" chiropractors reject subluxation is inarguably true, but it has the potential to be misleading. I don't know if the words "a few" or "most" or "a sizeable minority" or "a large majority" would be better - I'm
3321:
As always Cyndy, I'm sure we will have a lively engagement. There have been some good edits and questionable ones during the past week although I do have some big concerns regarding some safety and vaccination stuff, in particular the weight issue. It seems that you and I are most editors at
3234:
Can I ask you to take a short break, stop watching the articles and following Eubulides et al.'s edits, and focus on something else other than Knowledge for a few days? And think about how to achieve what you want to achieve here. It takes quite a bit of Zen detachment to edit an article like
2850:
Agreed with Coppertwig on this front. Admin Jericho32 did not comment on my response to Eubulides whom I personally consider disruptive as well, which I rebutted on MastCell talk page raising many valid points regarding edits by a medical doctor who wants to single handedly rewrite the entire
1359:
I will provide all the references within a few days. I do have them. This wiki needs major cleanup and simplification, just like our work on the main wiki. I hope to work with you constructively on this one and I will present all POV. Like you, I am a skeptic of the VSC which is a unique
2861:
Spinal manipulation, the most common modality in chiropractic care, has been increasingly studied in recent years as critics and proponents debate the merits of its efficacy and safety. Spinal manipulation has generally regarded is a safe and effective procedure for the treatment of various
1729:
When editing a controversial article like chiropractic undoubtedly some edits will be perceived as controversial, despite the fact the editor is doing so in good faith. I considered Eubulides original edit controversial reverted it, and he reverted mine. We'll find something in the middle
2463:
I would also ask Mr. Guru, that you refrain from "outing" users by using real identities as per proper wikipedia policy. The person in question has relocated to another province, however my initials M (for Martin) on 208 is indeed me and is simply when I have been logged out due to time.
3471:
as a judge, jury and executioner especially with referencing. That's my purpose here for chiropractic, bring on the scientific references to take this article from the stone age and to present a more current version of the profession circa 2008. For example, this chiropractic database (
519:
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.
632:
you have a dispute, you should explain why you believe that material is not sufficiently relevant to the topic to be worthy of mention. If you have a good enough reason and you are able to explain it properly, then likely other editors will agree with you and you will achieve
927:
ongoing POV discussion and the issues are not yet settled. It is thus wrong of you to attempt to reinsert it. A link to the chiro article will serve just as well and avoid making wikipedia look ridiculous by having two or more different definitions of chiro on various pages.
1991:
deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge's policies and guidelines.
3144:
I have increased your block to indefinite. This step is necessary to protect Knowledge and other editors from further disruption. If you would like to edit again, you need to show (not just say) that you will notengage in battles, personal attacks and violations of
2128:. If you stick around you'll see trends and know what I'm talking about. If you're decent at HTML could you make a text box around the philosopy points at the end (holism, conservatism, manual/biopsychosocial). It looks jumbly to me (but the content it good).
1760:
Hi EBDCM, I just wanted to let you know that I think you have improved significantly in the last few days. I think you'll find that if you respect other POVs, others will respect yours and ultimately we will end up with a NPOV article. Thanks for your help. --
3165:
Jehochman, this is beyond bogus. I am free to comment on edits. This type of conduct from yourself is completely disgraceful and I DEMAND that an admin panel look in this matter. What you are doing here is tantamount to extreme censorship. What a joke!
804:
this is typical. He'll ask for a sci study but then he'll find some flaw according to his own wisdom but he won't see any prob with wickedly poor "research" as long as it supports him pov. Just wanted to give you a heads up to save you the headache. :)
3644:
prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
2123:
It's quite the contentious article with land mines everywhere! We're doing our best to keep it at a high standard but there's always a few skeptics who try to mass edit things with questionable citations there is nowhere even in the ballpark of
1534:
The "fact" is QG is the edited I made were fully referenced and supported. The bigger question is; how come you flip-flopped on chiropractic talk supporting the edits in question and now oppose them along with your brigade of OM and AR?
1805:
Yep, your doing great! And as Fyslee said, think twice before hitting save. Numerous times I've decided not to comment on something even tho the editor in question is making a comment thats... well... just bad. :) Keep up the good work!
2920:
behaviour. All the points raised by myself and others concerning editor Eubulides with respect to his edits on the chiropractic article are indeed still playing out and hopefully other editors will see this trend and call him on it.
1255:
BTW, defending yourself too strongly might not be a good idea. An apology and promise to do better, including listening to more experienced users (especially Dematt), would serve you better. (Not that QG is totally innocent....;-) --
1864:
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
961:
replied on talkpage. Please desist from uncivil remarks. And this is about the seventh time I've reminded you to indent, and gone back and indented for you with colons. It helps to see clearly the discussion. Please do so in future.
841:
1173:
I looked for the incident report and could not find it in the link you provided. If it was a typo please resend it as I would like to at least defend myself and state my case regarding GQs accusation. Thanks in advance!
3800:
before commenting again. If I inadvertently broke a policy violation under legal then I am sorry; however your accusations of sockpuppetry and the canvassing that is behind it is not in good taste nor is it factual.
770:
2757:
policy and this block seems fully justified. Based on the amount of incivility shown, I don't see why it wasn't indefinite. When the block expires, do not make any more personal comments about editors —
3003:
Please stop this line of material, and return to editing articles. Let administrators deal with problematic editors, and stop making yourself the kind of editor an administrator is likely to notice. --
2316:
I would suggest that you not continue adding comments to QG's talk. It could be viewed as harassment and I take a dim view of that. If you want to discuss my block action, do it on my talk please.
1593:
sets out an "electric fence" insisting that no one revert more than 3 times in a day. The 3 reverts are an upper limit, though, and any edit-warring is generally bad. Looking over your edits to
1520:
Citing text with a reference does not change the facts. I will ask you one more time. Did you cut and paste text from any website. Please be honest and answer the question specifically. Thanks.
1464:
looked into the situation have assured me that edit in question was within the rules. I appreciate your concern and am working at learning the various ins and outs at wikipedia. Cheers.
3371:
provoke a conflict. If that happens, rather than responding to them, you would ask an uninvolved administrator for assistance. On those conditions I would unblock you. Do you agree?
2035:
Your edit failed to seek consensus despite numerous reverts by other editors. Please gain agreement on Talk page first as per the rest of the editors for major edits. Thanks.
725:
ongoing." And in order to report on that paradigm shift in the article, we're really going to need reliable sources that detail it for us. Do you know of any such sources? --
3355:
As per your recommendations, I have a) removed statements pertaining to legal action and b) have taken a Wikibreak. I would like to begin the process now for reinstatement.
1506:
to distract the real issue here which is why cited material from the WHO, Spine, JAMA and other journals was tagged as vandalism by yourself, OrangeMarlin and Arthur Rubin.
1615:
Thanks MastCell. I will do so. I realized I was getting close to the 3RR and was hoping it wouldn't go that far. I appreciate your suggestions and will implement them.
981:
Mccready, I'm still learning the ropes regarding formatting and am trying my best to make my comments as easy readable as possible. I will reply to you on the talk page.
40:
1360:
perspective considering I am a DC. I am editing in good faith and seek only to improve the quality and flow of the article. References will be forthcoming, I promise.
3081:
re: disruptive behaviour, etc. No point in continuing this conversation though; there is too much subjectivity involved with many admins, as alluded to by Coppertwig.
1589:, you seem to be engaged in a bit of an edit-war there regarding a quote from D.D. Palmer and some other issues. Knowledge discourages edit-warring in general, and the
2851:
chiropractic article citing MEDICAL journals when CHIROPRACTIC journals and publications easily rebut the very biased research articles that Eubulides to the table.
2244:
You should be aware that Homeopathy and related articles are under probation - Editors making disruptive edits to these pages may be banned by an administrator from
706:
having a lot of trouble finding a reliable source on that question. My impression is that "some" should stay, but only until we're confident enough to replace it.
3740:
This is a petty attempt at trying to discredit a good contributor. Nice try, Arthur. I made no such threats, I asked that you not say I was using a sock puppet.
552:
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.
164:
2916:
questionable. When a majority of editors talk through a point, justify their strikeout/concerns and it is restored by a single individual this is an example of
1138:
I hope you read and comment there. Failing to comment can be detrimental to your future reputation here. This is a golden opportunity to show you can learn. --
2799:
template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.
3823:
from the anti-chiropractic users who want to effectively muzzle my contributions which are of a high quality and always provide good, reliable references.
3717:
2939:
Eubulides is further engaging in more fast paced editing removing a section on safety towards chiropractors which I oppose. See you in 5 days, Eubulides!
1502:
QG, there is no copyvio issues. All the material was cited properly. It's no different than your edits. This copyvio is a bogus claim and it's simply a
3699:
I have not been using that IP address and those claims are unfounded. Accusing me of this is completely disingenious and is slander. Please apologize.
2686:
2968:
Please stop making these personal attacks against Eubulides on this talk page. You should be aware that continuing to do so violates Knowledge policy.
709:
Like I said on the Chiro talk page: if you have a suggestion that isn't a revert of someone else's edit, by all means, please be bold and make it. --
3585:; look for the comment containing the string "PSC approach" and for the comment containing the string "two much smaller groups". My main qualm about
2367:
appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our
1597:, a strict interpretation of the policy would suggest you've already gone up to 4 reverts. Even with a looser reading, you're right up against the
208:
862:
Please desist from personal abuse. You've been asked many times. Please format your contributions properly. You may wish to do so on this one
77:
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
3542:
3504:
2359:
to Knowledge, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Knowledge is that articles should always be written from a
616:
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.
702:
It looks like my edit to Chiropractic and your note on my talk page sailed past each other in the night; I already edited that sentence.
2784:
2681:
356:
44:
588:
GQ, I took out some dated and weak references and provided newer ones that are more robust. Such is the nature of scientific inquiry.
3679:
2415:
Quick question. Is the anon and the two separate accounts the same person. If so, I recommend you edit with only one account. Agreed?
453:
3249:
Hopefully EBDCM will come to understand where the line is and learn not to cross it so that they can return to productive editing.
1436:
I haven't looked extensively into your contribs but I am deeply concerned about what I have heard. I would strongly suggest you read
3979:
3974:
3969:
2273:
2063:
387:
3557:
Whom am I replying to? What do you feel needs to be discussed? Perhaps we can do it here, as it would be a more appropriate venue.
2272:. Editors must be individually notified of article probation before being banned. All resulting blocks and bans shall be logged at
1861:
74:
2435:
Thanks for asking for clarification first, but I had already mentioned this to admins to avoid these accusations and confusion.
2360:
833:
431:
204:
182:
1880:
I generally have been doing that; but sometimes have forgotten, but sometimes have done so and my signature has not come up!
3066:
3014:
2769:
680:
259:
186:
1209:
2842:
365:
360:
309:
3881:
I've been engaged here for a few months. I know of bite because you're not the first skeptic who's tried to silence me.
2833:
1549:
I reverted the controversial edit before and explained on the talk page I did not support the recent additions by the IP.
3662:
3582:
742:
There are 2, 3, or 4 groups? Please provide a reference. Should we delete the reformers bit or leave it in the article.
330:
291:
128:
3452:
article like chiropractic is not going to get irretrievably better or worse in a few days, so sometimes it's useful to
3646:
3641:
2855:
critiques so that when this unjustifiably LONG block ends we can resume this contentious, although important, debate:
2700:
2614:
2530:
2508:
2020:
and deleted quality references needed to verify the text. Consider NPOV. Please refrain from making such edits again.
445:
296:
220:
591:
The references were not weak and that is not a reason to also delete the content and replace it with something else.
3941:
2658:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1952:
427:
321:
313:
237:
233:
195:
3652:
3581:
would be a good source for practice styles and would welcome changes based on that. I used it in the comments in
2659:
2602:
2593:
1488:
concerns about the recent text you added to Knowledge. Did you copy paste text from the website. Please discuss.
837:
409:
369:
255:
216:
3657:. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
2241:
I know you may already read this, but officially I apparently have to put this block of text on your talk page:
3546:
3508:
2653:
2012:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Chiropractic&curid=197022&diff=194254981&oldid=194251405
1110:
382:
378:
242:
199:
3307:
It's boring without you, EBDCM! Just don't let anyone push your buttons. I'll be glad when you are back.CynRN
2101:
Your welcome I'm trying to make the Chiropratic article a bit easier to read...its very hard on the eyes...--
3950:
1956:
1828:
338:
224:
191:
17:
1898:
If only the time stamp comes up, then it's because five tildes were used. That might be an explanation. --
3873:
3774:
3732:
3690:
3673:
2610:
2368:
2356:
334:
325:
122:
118:
778:
1779:
1338:
440:
436:
391:
3669:
2155:
2995:
Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws.
3538:
2731:
Heavy handed response not in line with precedents for first blocks; disagree editing was disruptive.
2518:
2496:
2106:
2077:
1948:
1847:
1445:
1441:
1299:
The evidence is there for all to see, QG. I accused no one. Facts shall rule the day. Goodnight.
850:
845:
793:
788:
263:
229:
87:
82:
68:
52:
2066:....I don't want people visiting this article to be confused so I made these edits as a compromise:
1947:
for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on
726:
710:
3903:
3658:
3602:
3418:
2569:
2420:
2378:
2336:
2285:
2181:
2025:
1997:
1843:
1594:
1586:
1579:
1557:
1525:
1493:
1453:
1288:
1117:
1013:
840:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at
748:
730:
714:
644:
633:
597:
576:
541:
509:
413:
304:
287:
250:
159:
3633:
3060:
3008:
2989:
2809:
It's unfortunate that such myopia exists here without proper context. Regardless I shall wait.
2763:
2664:
2552:
1824:
1700:
1643:
1346:
1088:
is the policy for handling disputes, so you should look there before following my suggestion. --
967:
932:
909:
870:
674:
300:
114:
3898:
Please gain consensus among editors by discussing the matters at hand on the talk page. Thanks.
1406:
I occasionally do that, too. Please feel free to correct me when I forget to indent properly.
904:
Replied on my talkpage. And I have indented again for you. Will you please remember to do this?
2838:
oppose giving admins extra powers to define users as disruptive according to subjective opinion
1962:
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
3870:
3771:
3729:
3687:
1943:, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see
1870:
1485:
1437:
782:
423:
78:
774:
500:
You deleted cited material agreed upon by consensus and then replaced it with different text.
3193:
2793:
2321:
2163:
1983:
1907:
1858:, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
1854:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
1811:
1791:
1767:
1416:
1388:
1280:
1265:
1221:
1147:
810:
766:
Not sure if any of this helps you, but at the very least I thought you might be interested:
485:
132:
3907:
3890:
3886:
3876:
3832:
3828:
3810:
3806:
3777:
3767:
3759:
3749:
3745:
3735:
3721:
3708:
3704:
3693:
3682:), as has been reported to me a private E-mail, your indef block should be reinstated for
3606:
3566:
3562:
3550:
3512:
3463:
3425:
3404:
3400:
3375:
3364:
3360:
3331:
3327:
3316:
3312:
3294:
3290:
3253:
3241:
3213:
3209:
3198:
3175:
3171:
3157:
3150:
3096:
3092:
3071:
3050:
3046:
3019:
2963:
2959:
2948:
2944:
2930:
2926:
2903:
2899:
2888:
2884:
2818:
2814:
2774:
2740:
2736:
2639:
2585:
2573:
2556:
2534:
2526:
2504:
2473:
2469:
2444:
2440:
2424:
2409:
2400:
2396:
2382:
2340:
2325:
2305:
2301:
2289:
2269:
2257:
2220:
2216:
2185:
2176:
limit at the chiropractic article. You seem to revert anything you don't personally like.
2167:
2137:
2133:
2125:
2102:
2096:
2092:
2081:
2073:
2044:
2040:
2029:
2001:
1967:
1912:
1889:
1885:
1874:
1832:
1815:
1796:
1772:
1739:
1735:
1704:
1674:
1670:
1647:
1624:
1620:
1607:
1561:
1544:
1540:
1529:
1515:
1511:
1497:
1473:
1469:
1457:
1421:
1393:
1369:
1365:
1350:
1308:
1304:
1292:
1270:
1226:
1183:
1179:
1152:
1121:
1097:
1074:
1051:
1017:
990:
986:
952:
948:
936:
913:
895:
891:
874:
852:
814:
795:
753:
734:
718:
689:
648:
602:
581:
564:
560:
546:
529:
525:
514:
490:
449:
89:
60:
3994:
3899:
3866:
3820:
3683:
3598:
3422:
3372:
3250:
3154:
3146:
2636:
2565:
2513:
2416:
2374:
2332:
2281:
2253:
2177:
2021:
1993:
1944:
1553:
1521:
1489:
1449:
1284:
1113:
1093:
1070:
1062:
1047:
1031:
1009:
743:
640:
592:
571:
536:
504:
417:
374:
246:
154:
3628:
2493:
like and trying to popularize his ideas. He used to be on the radio in my area.CynRN
1928:
825:
3763:
3725:
3459:
3237:
3056:
3004:
2972:
2917:
2759:
2754:
2548:
2265:
2261:
2173:
1981:(just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
1940:
1696:
1639:
1603:
1598:
1590:
1342:
1058:
1039:
1035:
963:
928:
905:
866:
685:
670:
637:
150:
81:
field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --
740:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=190012163
3637:
3127:
Due to the relentless stream of personal attacks you have been making on this page,
2364:
2277:
2056:
1866:
1085:
666:
2954:
deplorable and his claims of POV are either grossly exaggerated or without merit.
2753:
Your behavior in directly confronting other editors has been out of line with the
2977:
Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views
2156:
By 1995, chiropractors had gained hospital privileges at more than 100 hospitals.
3949:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3188:
2317:
2159:
1977:
1939:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under
1936:
1922:
1900:
1807:
1784:
1762:
1503:
1411:
1381:
1258:
1214:
1140:
806:
478:
3882:
3824:
3802:
3741:
3700:
3558:
3396:
3356:
3323:
3308:
3286:
3205:
3167:
3088:
3042:
2955:
2940:
2922:
2895:
2880:
2810:
2732:
2522:
2500:
2465:
2436:
2392:
2297:
2245:
2212:
2129:
2088:
2036:
1881:
1731:
1666:
1616:
1536:
1507:
1465:
1361:
1300:
1175:
982:
944:
887:
556:
521:
3754:
I can't find evidence of anyone accusing you of being a good contributor. I
2154:
Was just looking at some of the refs in the chiro article and noticed this:
1855:
1089:
1066:
1043:
1112:
I have filed a report at a noticeboard. Feel free to comment at the board.
3865:
You're not a new editor. One could make a case that anyone who can quote
3055:
Nope, I didn't unilaterally block you at all. Another user did that... --
2248:
and related articles or project pages. Editors of such articles should be
1778:
In spite of the often inevitable beginner problems you have encountered,
842:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
2352:
3770:
violation seems to have been deleted, rather than merely withdrawn. —
2879:
to my concern regarding this fear mongering for close to 2 weeks now).
2563:
1860:
1552:
Please provide your evidence of a flip-flop. I think you are mistaken.
1008:
There are issues surrounding the information you added to the article.
73:
2546:
1823:
I also think you are doing a fantastic job. . . keep up the good work!
3869:
isn't new enough to be covered by it, but I wouldn't go that far. —
3472:
2062:; the problem is that there is whole 'nother article which is called
1482:
1212:
in the archives. Noticeboard stuff gets archived pretty quickly. --
1005:
3141:
and your apparent intent to harass and edit war with other editors,
1851:
943:
editors that you gain some kind of consensus first in Talk Pages.
67:
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
2985:
as you do above, using Eubulides's status as an MD against him.
3928:
3597:
in Google Books, if it's not available in your local library.
2830:
2158:. Thought it might help with an edit you were trying to add.--
476:
Thanks for getting a user name, and for signing. Congrats. --
3395:
hopefully we can avoid stepping on a chiropractic land mine!
1006:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation
274:
101:
34:
2644:
2584:
1987:
explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for
1927:
824:
3535:
I started a discussion about you on the chiropractic page
2631:
To any administrator reviewing this block, please read the
1842:
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
821:
AfD nomination of Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
3457:
even if you're right you'll end up looking silly at best.
1846:
and Knowledge pages that have open discussion, you should
2781:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
2801:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
2331:
Please do not revert-war on my talk page again. Agreed?
2274:
Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation#Log of blocks and bans
535:
For example, you have a pattern of deleting references.
47:
to this đź’•. If you decide that you need help, check out
3896:
3797:
3142:
3139:
3137:
3135:
3132:
3130:
3128:
2714:
2710:
2704:
2695:
2691:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2632:
2625:
2372:
2070:
2067:
2060:
2017:
2011:
1550:
1276:
1028:
863:
801:
739:
570:
But you still deleted references without explanantion.
501:
3995:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_arthritis_diet.html
2827:
Subjective Block without Due Process; Sideline editing
2059:
wasn't bad; Modalities is a good word to describe it:
2613:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
1023:
Talk:Chiropractic and your complaints about QuackGuru
2652:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
2514:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/newsletter/may_june2.html
865:. You have yet to provide the evidence I asked for.
496:
your edit did not completely match your edit summary
2858:Proposed safety text including talk modifications:
1034:. Please take it to an appropriate venue, such as
832:An article that you have been involved in editing,
3895:You have continued edit warring without consensus.
2635:and response carefully before making a decision.
2609:. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to
1030:, as inappropriate for the article talk page per
2840:. --Coppertwig (talk) 19:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2624:There is substantial and convincing evidence at
1695:Are you denying your revert was controversial?
3668:However, if you've been using the IP address
1941:section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion
1585:Hi EBDCM. With regard to your edits today to
8:
3624:3RR warning in your history, so here it is.
1379:It's confusing when you call them wikis. --
3718:Knowledge:Requests for checkuser/Case/EBDCM
3187:This is certainly a sad turn of events. --
3636:according to the reverts you have made on
1951:subjects and should provide references to
1057:Your complaints appear to be mostly about
3632:You currently appear to be engaged in an
2237:Homeopathy article probation notification
834:Chiropractic care: Research and Criticism
922:Revert warring on Doctor of Chiropractic
881:you've gone too far. I agree with them.
3987:
1277:thanks for reverting the true vandalism
160:Where to ask questions or make comments
3947:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3758:find evidence of you being accused of
2252:mindful of content policies, such as
665:Hello. Regarding the activity on the
7:
3661:among editors. If necessary, pursue
3421:. You are unblocked (in a moment).
2256:, and interaction policies, such as
1333:Your edits on vertebral subluxation
3766:violations, although the previous
3583:Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 16 #Lead
3473:http://www.chiroindex.org/#results
24:
2064:Chiropractic treatment techniques
3932:
3720:filed, and I'll comment on your
3627:
2351:
1859:
1279:Please do not accuse editors of
762:Analgesic effects of Acupuncture
555:You edits, on the other hand...
72:
30:
3134:, in spite of warnings to stop,
2611:make constructive contributions
165:Request administrator attention
1027:I've archived your complaint,
1:
2617:by adding the text {{unblock|
2597:from editing for a period of
2363:. A contribution you made to
2306:02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2290:22:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
2276:, and may be appealed to the
2168:08:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2138:05:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2097:05:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2082:05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2045:01:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
2030:21:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
2002:06:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1913:21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1890:19:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1875:19:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1816:20:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1797:18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
1773:04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1740:02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1705:00:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1675:23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1648:23:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1625:22:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1608:20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1474:12:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1458:10:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1422:04:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1394:06:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1370:05:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1351:05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1271:07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1227:07:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1184:06:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1153:06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1122:03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1098:03:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1075:03:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1052:02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1018:21:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
991:02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
953:16:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
937:15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
914:05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
896:05:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
875:05:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
853:19:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
815:07:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
796:06:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
649:10:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
209:Biographies of living persons
97:
3819:This seems more of the same
1337:Thank you for your edits on
754:22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
735:20:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
719:19:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
690:17:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
603:19:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
582:17:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
565:05:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
547:05:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
530:04:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
515:03:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
491:05:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
90:06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
43:to Knowledge! Thank you for
2656:, who declined the request.
2603:Knowledge's blocking policy
2511:) 06:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2278:Administrators' noticeboard
234:Policy for non-free content
4013:
3908:18:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3891:16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3877:15:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3833:14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3811:13:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3778:13:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3750:13:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3736:13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3709:13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3694:12:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3607:00:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
3567:01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
3551:01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
3513:23:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3464:21:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3426:21:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3417:For content disputes, use
3405:19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3376:19:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3365:19:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3332:18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3317:05:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
3295:13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3254:11:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3242:05:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3214:04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3199:03:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
3176:23:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3158:15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3097:15:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3072:04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3051:04:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
3020:02:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2964:22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2949:17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2931:16:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2904:04:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2889:16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2819:03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2775:03:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2741:02:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1833:19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1562:20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1545:20:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1530:18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1516:18:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1498:18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1309:04:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
1293:04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
151:Frequently asked questions
71:on talk pages by clicking
3593:You can read snatches of
2785:guide to appealing blocks
2640:19:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2574:05:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
2557:20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
2535:18:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2474:22:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2445:21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2425:19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2401:22:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2383:18:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2341:18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2326:02:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2221:06:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
2186:18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
2109:) 05:49, 27 February 2008
1935:A tag has been placed on
1780:I second Dematt's comment
3612:Chiropractic 3RR warning
1408:(They don't do it at CZ)
3573:Practice styles and PPC
3348:Indefinite Block Review
2541:You are being discussed
2087:Seems sensible to me!
1984:the article's talk page
388:Pages needing attention
174:Policies and guidelines
18:User talk:CorticoSpinal
3796:Maybe you should read
2649:
2589:
1932:
836:, has been listed for
829:
669:article: I've blocked
39:Hello, CorticoSpinal!
3945:of past discussions.
3147:neutral point of view
2701:change block settings
2648:
2588:
2361:neutral point of view
1931:
1339:vertebral subluxation
828:
205:What Knowledge is not
183:Neutral point of view
133:upload and use images
3352:Jehochman, MastCell
2410:alternative accounts
2051:Edit on Chiropractic
1442:Knowledge:Copyrights
695:Chiropractic article
260:Conflict of interest
187:No original research
3649:. If you continue,
3419:Knowledge:Mediation
2992:: you may not have
2601:in accordance with
2347:please respect NPOV
1921:Speedy deletion of
1595:vaccine controversy
1587:vaccine controversy
1580:vaccine controversy
1061:issues, so I'd try
858:Tirade on Chirotalk
366:The perfect article
310:No personal attacks
3663:dispute resolution
2650:
2607:disruptive editing
2590:
1933:
830:
437:Join a WikiProject
361:Develop an article
357:Be bold in editing
45:your contributions
3985:
3984:
3957:
3956:
3951:current talk page
3647:three-revert rule
3642:three-revert rule
3553:
3541:comment added by
3069:
3063:
3017:
3011:
2998:on your userpage.
2847:
2846:
2772:
2766:
2615:contest the block
2537:
2521:comment added by
2512:
2499:comment added by
1838:Your recent edits
1409:
1275:Why did you say:
844:. Thank you. --
469:
468:
465:
464:
461:
460:
297:Assume good faith
271:
270:
221:Three-revert rule
96:
95:
51:below, ask me on
4004:
3997:
3992:
3966:
3959:
3958:
3936:
3935:
3929:
3640:. Note that the
3631:
3536:
3531:A note about you
3196:
3123:Indefinite block
3067:
3061:
3015:
3009:
2982:never acceptable
2831:
2798:
2792:
2770:
2764:
2720:
2718:
2707:
2689:
2687:deleted contribs
2647:
2619:your reason here
2516:
2494:
2355:
2172:Be careful with
1973:
1972:
1966:
1959:their content.
1953:reliable sources
1863:
1770:
1419:
1407:
751:
746:
600:
595:
579:
574:
544:
539:
512:
507:
503:Please explain.
446:Useful templates
348:Writing articles
322:Community Portal
314:No legal threats
292:Resolve disputes
275:
238:Image use policy
196:Reliable sources
123:Getting mentored
119:Our five pillars
102:
98:
76:
65:
59:
35:
31:
4012:
4011:
4007:
4006:
4005:
4003:
4002:
4001:
4000:
3993:
3989:
3962:
3933:
3686:violations. —
3616:I can't find a
3614:
3575:
3533:
3350:
3194:
3125:
2829:
2804:
2796:
2790:
2789:, then use the
2778:
2744:
2708:
2698:
2684:
2667:
2660:blocking policy
2645:
2622:
2582:
2543:
2490:
2413:
2349:
2314:
2239:
2053:
2009:
1970:
1964:
1963:
1926:
1850:by typing four
1848:sign your posts
1840:
1768:
1758:
1583:
1434:
1417:
1335:
1208:You'll find it
1025:
1003:
924:
860:
823:
764:
749:
744:
697:
663:
598:
593:
577:
572:
542:
537:
510:
505:
498:
474:
402:
370:Manual of style
349:
288:Build consensus
280:
256:Deletion policy
217:Manual of Style
175:
143:
107:
106:Getting started
92:
63:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4010:
4008:
3999:
3998:
3986:
3983:
3982:
3977:
3972:
3967:
3955:
3954:
3937:
3927:
3926:
3925:
3924:
3923:
3922:
3921:
3920:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3915:
3914:
3913:
3912:
3911:
3910:
3893:
3848:
3847:
3846:
3845:
3844:
3843:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3839:
3838:
3837:
3836:
3835:
3787:
3786:
3785:
3784:
3783:
3782:
3781:
3780:
3712:
3711:
3613:
3610:
3574:
3571:
3570:
3569:
3543:125.168.45.230
3532:
3529:
3528:
3527:
3526:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3520:
3519:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3515:
3505:208.101.89.150
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3433:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3389:
3388:
3387:
3386:
3379:
3378:
3349:
3346:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3338:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3305:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3298:
3297:
3265:
3264:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3259:
3258:
3257:
3256:
3232:
3228:
3219:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3183:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3178:
3124:
3121:
3120:
3119:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3099:
3029:
3028:
3027:
3026:
3025:
3024:
3023:
3022:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2986:
2934:
2933:
2911:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2849:
2845:
2844:
2841:
2835:
2828:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2822:
2821:
2779:
2751:
2747:Decline reason
2729:
2725:Request reason
2722:
2643:
2591:You have been
2583:
2581:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2542:
2539:
2489:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2412:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2348:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2313:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2238:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2052:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2018:unconstructive
2016:Your edit was
2008:
2005:
1945:Knowledge:Stub
1925:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1893:
1892:
1839:
1836:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1800:
1799:
1757:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1582:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1477:
1476:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1373:
1372:
1357:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1084:your dispute,
1078:
1077:
1024:
1021:
1002:
1001:please discuss
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
974:
973:
972:
971:
956:
955:
923:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
899:
898:
883:
882:
859:
856:
822:
819:
818:
817:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
763:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
696:
693:
662:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
608:
607:
606:
605:
585:
584:
550:
549:
497:
494:
473:
470:
467:
466:
463:
462:
459:
458:
457:
456:
443:
434:
420:
404:
403:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
385:
383:Disambiguation
372:
363:
351:
350:
347:
344:
343:
342:
341:
328:
318:
317:
316:
307:
294:
282:
281:
278:
272:
269:
268:
267:
266:
253:
243:External links
240:
227:
213:
212:
211:
202:
200:Citing sources
189:
177:
176:
173:
170:
169:
168:
167:
162:
157:
145:
144:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
125:
109:
108:
105:
94:
93:
69:sign your name
38:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4009:
3996:
3991:
3988:
3981:
3978:
3976:
3973:
3971:
3968:
3965:
3961:
3960:
3952:
3948:
3944:
3943:
3938:
3931:
3930:
3909:
3905:
3901:
3897:
3894:
3892:
3888:
3884:
3880:
3879:
3878:
3875:
3872:
3868:
3864:
3863:
3862:
3861:
3860:
3859:
3858:
3857:
3856:
3855:
3854:
3853:
3852:
3851:
3850:
3849:
3834:
3830:
3826:
3822:
3818:
3817:
3816:
3815:
3814:
3813:
3812:
3808:
3804:
3799:
3795:
3794:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3789:
3788:
3779:
3776:
3773:
3769:
3765:
3761:
3757:
3753:
3752:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3738:
3737:
3734:
3731:
3727:
3723:
3719:
3716:
3715:
3714:
3713:
3710:
3706:
3702:
3698:
3697:
3696:
3695:
3692:
3689:
3685:
3681:
3678:
3675:
3671:
3666:
3664:
3660:
3656:
3654:
3648:
3643:
3639:
3635:
3630:
3625:
3623:
3619:
3611:
3609:
3608:
3604:
3600:
3596:
3591:
3588:
3584:
3580:
3577:Yes, I think
3572:
3568:
3564:
3560:
3556:
3555:
3554:
3552:
3548:
3544:
3540:
3530:
3514:
3510:
3506:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3491:
3490:
3489:
3488:
3474:
3469:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3465:
3462:
3461:
3455:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3445:
3444:
3443:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3406:
3402:
3398:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3380:
3377:
3374:
3369:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3362:
3358:
3353:
3347:
3333:
3329:
3325:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3314:
3310:
3306:
3296:
3292:
3288:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3255:
3252:
3247:
3246:
3245:
3244:
3243:
3240:
3239:
3233:
3229:
3225:
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3215:
3211:
3207:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3197:
3192:
3191:
3186:
3185:
3184:
3177:
3173:
3169:
3164:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3159:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3143:
3140:
3138:
3136:
3133:
3131:
3129:
3122:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3079:
3078:
3077:
3076:
3075:
3074:
3073:
3070:
3064:
3058:
3054:
3053:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3039:
3038:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3021:
3018:
3012:
3006:
3002:
2997:
2996:
2991:
2987:
2984:
2983:
2978:
2974:
2970:
2969:
2967:
2966:
2965:
2961:
2957:
2952:
2951:
2950:
2946:
2942:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2932:
2928:
2924:
2919:
2918:paternalistic
2914:
2913:
2912:
2905:
2901:
2897:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2859:
2856:
2852:
2839:
2836:
2832:
2826:
2820:
2816:
2812:
2808:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2803:
2802:
2795:
2788:
2786:
2777:
2776:
2773:
2767:
2761:
2756:
2750:
2748:
2743:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2728:
2726:
2721:
2716:
2712:
2706:
2702:
2697:
2693:
2688:
2683:
2679:
2678:global blocks
2675:
2674:active blocks
2671:
2666:
2665:CorticoSpinal
2661:
2657:
2655:
2654:administrator
2642:
2641:
2638:
2634:
2629:
2627:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2595:
2587:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2564:
2561:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2547:
2540:
2538:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2515:
2510:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2488:Dr. McDougall
2487:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2427:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2411:
2408:
2402:
2398:
2394:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2373:
2370:
2369:core policies
2366:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2242:
2236:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2068:
2065:
2061:
2058:
2055:Your edit on
2050:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2014:
2013:
2006:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1980:
1979:
1969:
1960:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1930:
1924:
1920:
1914:
1911:
1910:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1862:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1837:
1835:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1825:TheDoctorIsIn
1817:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1795:
1794:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1771:
1766:
1765:
1755:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1599:3-revert rule
1596:
1592:
1591:3-revert rule
1588:
1581:
1577:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1446:WP:Plagiarism
1443:
1439:
1431:
1423:
1420:
1415:
1414:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1332:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1211:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1042:. Thanks! --
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1022:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1000:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
969:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
954:
950:
946:
941:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
921:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
879:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
857:
855:
854:
851:
849:
848:
843:
839:
835:
827:
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
792:
791:
783:
781:
779:
777:
775:
773:
771:
769:
768:
767:
761:
755:
752:
747:
741:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
723:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
707:
703:
700:
699:Hey, EBDCM -
694:
692:
691:
688:
687:
682:
679:
676:
672:
668:
660:
650:
646:
642:
639:
635:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
604:
601:
596:
590:
589:
587:
586:
583:
580:
575:
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
553:
548:
545:
540:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
517:
516:
513:
508:
502:
495:
493:
492:
489:
488:
483:
482:
481:
471:
455:
451:
447:
444:
442:
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
421:
419:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
401:Miscellaneous
399:
398:
393:
389:
386:
384:
380:
376:
373:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
346:
345:
340:
339:Mailing lists
336:
332:
329:
327:
323:
320:
319:
315:
311:
308:
306:
302:
298:
295:
293:
289:
286:
285:
284:
283:
279:The community
277:
276:
273:
265:
261:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
241:
239:
235:
231:
228:
226:
225:Sock puppetry
222:
218:
215:
214:
210:
206:
203:
201:
197:
193:
192:Verifiability
190:
188:
184:
181:
180:
179:
178:
172:
171:
166:
163:
161:
158:
156:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
140:
139:
134:
130:
126:
124:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
104:
103:
100:
99:
91:
88:
86:
85:
80:
75:
70:
66:
62:
54:
50:
46:
42:
37:
36:
33:
32:
26:
19:
3990:
3963:
3946:
3940:
3871:Arthur Rubin
3772:Arthur Rubin
3755:
3730:Arthur Rubin
3688:Arthur Rubin
3676:
3670:64.25.184.27
3667:
3655:from editing
3650:
3638:Chiropractic
3626:
3621:
3617:
3615:
3594:
3592:
3586:
3578:
3576:
3534:
3458:
3453:
3354:
3351:
3236:
3189:
3182:
3126:
2994:
2993:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2910:
2872:
2868:
2864:
2860:
2857:
2853:
2848:
2837:
2800:
2782:
2780:
2752:
2746:
2745:
2730:
2724:
2723:
2696:creation log
2663:
2651:
2630:
2623:
2618:
2606:
2598:
2592:
2544:
2491:
2414:
2371:. Thank you.
2365:Chiropractic
2350:
2315:
2249:
2243:
2240:
2114:
2057:Chiropractic
2054:
2015:
2010:
2007:smacks point
1988:
1982:
1975:
1961:
1934:
1908:
1901:
1899:
1841:
1822:
1792:
1785:
1783:
1763:
1759:
1602:
1584:
1435:
1412:
1389:
1382:
1380:
1356:Hi Mccready,
1336:
1266:
1259:
1257:
1222:
1215:
1213:
1148:
1141:
1139:
1026:
1004:
925:
861:
846:
831:
789:
787:Warmest, --
786:
765:
708:
704:
701:
698:
684:
677:
667:chiropractic
664:
661:Edit-warring
634:WP:Consensus
554:
551:
518:
499:
486:
479:
477:
475:
454:User scripts
335:IRC channels
326:Village pump
142:Getting help
83:
79:edit summary
56:
53:my talk page
49:Getting Help
48:
3939:This is an
3651:you may be
3537:—Preceding
2990:WP:USERPAGE
2626:this thread
2517:—Preceding
2495:—Preceding
1976:the top of
1937:Diversified
1923:Diversified
1578:Editing to
1504:red herring
1283:Knowledge.
1281:vandalizing
1038:or perhaps
886:Goodnight.
441:Translation
392:Peer review
129:edit a page
55:, or place
3724:threat on
3432:Thank-you.
2692:filter log
2621:}} below.
2250:especially
2246:homeopathy
2103:Trulexicon
2074:Trulexicon
2069:and here:
1844:talk pages
1486:WP:COPYVIO
1484:There are
1438:WP:Copyvio
847:Levine2112
790:Levine2112
422:Clean up:
418:Talk pages
414:User pages
379:Categories
264:Notability
230:Copyrights
115:A tutorial
84:Levine2112
3980:Archive 4
3975:Archive 3
3970:Archive 2
3964:Archive 1
3900:QuackGuru
3659:consensus
3599:Eubulides
3423:Jehochman
3373:Jehochman
3251:Jehochman
3155:Jehochman
2783:read the
2711:checkuser
2670:block log
2637:Jehochman
2566:QuackGuru
2562:And here.
2417:QuackGuru
2375:QuackGuru
2333:QuackGuru
2282:QuackGuru
2178:QuackGuru
2022:QuackGuru
1994:Gary King
1856:Shift key
1756:Good work
1554:QuackGuru
1522:QuackGuru
1490:QuackGuru
1450:Nil Einne
1285:QuackGuru
1114:QuackGuru
1010:QuackGuru
727:Hyperbole
711:Hyperbole
641:Nil Einne
472:User name
432:Vandalism
410:User name
305:Etiquette
251:Vandalism
3768:WP:LEGAL
3760:WP:LEGAL
3722:WP:LEGAL
3680:contribs
3634:edit war
3618:specific
3539:unsigned
3460:MastCell
3238:MastCell
3068:contribs
3057:Jayron32
3016:contribs
3005:Jayron32
2771:contribs
2760:Jayron32
2682:contribs
2633:evidence
2549:Anthon01
2531:contribs
2519:unsigned
2509:contribs
2497:unsigned
2270:WP:POINT
2258:WP:CIVIL
2126:WP:MEDRS
1978:the page
1697:Mccready
1665:revert.
1640:Mccready
1604:MastCell
1343:Mccready
964:Mccready
929:Mccready
906:Mccready
867:Mccready
838:deletion
686:MastCell
681:contribs
671:Mccready
331:Signpost
301:Civility
127:How to:
27:Welcome!
3942:archive
3867:WP:BITE
3821:WP:BITE
3684:WP:SOCK
3653:blocked
3151:decorum
2794:unblock
2705:unblock
2594:blocked
2580:Blocked
2357:Welcome
2254:WP:NPOV
1949:notable
1867:SineBot
1432:Copyvio
1063:WP:COIN
1032:WP:TALK
424:General
41:Welcome
3874:(talk)
3775:(talk)
3764:WP:NPA
3733:(talk)
3726:WP:ANI
3691:(talk)
3622:formal
3195:(chat)
3190:DÄ“matt
2973:WP:NPA
2755:WP:NPA
2599:1 week
2318:Vsmith
2268:, and
2266:WP:3RR
2262:WP:NPA
2174:WP:3RR
2160:Hughgr
2115:(UTC)
1989:speedy
1968:hangon
1957:verify
1902:Fyslee
1852:tildes
1808:Hughgr
1786:Fyslee
1769:(chat)
1764:DÄ“matt
1418:(chat)
1413:DÄ“matt
1383:Fyslee
1260:Fyslee
1216:Fyslee
1142:Fyslee
1059:WP:COI
1040:WP:ANI
1036:WP:EAR
807:Hughgr
638:WP:NPA
480:Fyslee
61:helpme
3883:EBDCM
3825:EBDCM
3803:EBDCM
3742:EBDCM
3701:EBDCM
3559:EBDCM
3397:EBDCM
3357:EBDCM
3324:EBDCM
3309:CynRN
3287:EBDCM
3206:EBDCM
3168:EBDCM
3089:EBDCM
3043:EBDCM
2988:From
2971:From
2956:EBDCM
2941:EBDCM
2923:EBDCM
2896:EBDCM
2881:EBDCM
2811:EBDCM
2787:first
2733:EBDCM
2545:Here.
2523:CynRN
2501:CynRN
2466:EBDCM
2437:EBDCM
2393:EBDCM
2298:EBDCM
2213:EBDCM
2130:EBDCM
2089:EBDCM
2037:EBDCM
1955:that
1882:EBDCM
1732:EBDCM
1667:EBDCM
1617:EBDCM
1537:EBDCM
1508:EBDCM
1466:EBDCM
1362:EBDCM
1301:EBDCM
1176:EBDCM
1086:WP:DR
983:EBDCM
945:EBDCM
888:EBDCM
745:Quack
594:Quack
573:Quack
557:EBDCM
538:Quack
522:EBDCM
506:Quack
450:Tools
375:Stubs
16:<
3904:talk
3887:talk
3829:talk
3807:talk
3798:this
3762:and
3746:talk
3728:. —
3705:talk
3674:talk
3603:talk
3563:talk
3547:talk
3509:talk
3401:talk
3361:talk
3328:talk
3313:talk
3291:talk
3210:talk
3172:talk
3149:and
3093:talk
3062:talk
3047:talk
3010:talk
2960:talk
2945:talk
2927:talk
2900:talk
2885:talk
2815:talk
2765:talk
2737:talk
2605:for
2570:talk
2553:talk
2527:talk
2505:talk
2470:talk
2441:talk
2421:talk
2397:talk
2379:talk
2337:talk
2322:talk
2302:talk
2286:talk
2217:talk
2182:talk
2164:talk
2134:talk
2107:talk
2093:talk
2078:talk
2041:talk
2026:talk
1998:talk
1909:talk
1886:talk
1871:talk
1829:talk
1812:talk
1793:talk
1736:talk
1701:talk
1671:talk
1644:talk
1621:talk
1558:talk
1541:talk
1526:talk
1512:talk
1494:talk
1470:talk
1454:talk
1444:and
1390:talk
1366:talk
1347:talk
1305:talk
1289:talk
1267:talk
1223:talk
1210:here
1180:talk
1149:talk
1118:talk
1094:talk
1090:Ronz
1071:talk
1067:Ronz
1065:. --
1048:talk
1044:Ronz
1014:talk
987:talk
968:talk
949:talk
933:talk
910:talk
892:talk
871:talk
811:talk
802:FYI,
750:Guru
731:talk
715:talk
675:talk
645:talk
599:Guru
578:Guru
561:talk
543:Guru
526:talk
511:Guru
487:talk
428:Spam
247:Spam
155:Tips
3756:can
3665:.
3595:PPC
3587:PPC
3579:PPC
3454:not
3153:.
2979:is
2975::*"
2715:log
2662:).
1974:to
1410:--
3906:)
3889:)
3831:)
3809:)
3748:)
3707:)
3620:,
3605:)
3565:)
3549:)
3511:)
3403:)
3363:)
3330:)
3315:)
3293:)
3212:)
3174:)
3095:)
3049:)
2962:)
2947:)
2929:)
2902:)
2887:)
2843:”
2834:“
2817:)
2797:}}
2791:{{
2749::
2739:)
2727::
2709:•
2703:•
2699:•
2694:•
2690:•
2685:•
2680:•
2676:•
2672:•
2572:)
2555:)
2533:)
2529:•
2507:•
2472:)
2443:)
2423:)
2399:)
2381:)
2339:)
2324:)
2312:QG
2304:)
2288:)
2280:.
2264:,
2260:,
2219:)
2184:)
2166:)
2136:)
2095:)
2080:)
2072:--
2043:)
2028:)
2000:)
1971:}}
1965:{{
1906:/
1888:)
1873:)
1865:--
1831:)
1814:)
1806:--
1790:/
1738:)
1703:)
1673:)
1646:)
1623:)
1560:)
1543:)
1528:)
1514:)
1496:)
1472:)
1456:)
1440:,
1387:/
1368:)
1349:)
1307:)
1291:)
1264:/
1220:/
1182:)
1146:/
1120:)
1096:)
1073:)
1050:)
1016:)
989:)
951:)
935:)
912:)
894:)
873:)
813:)
805:--
733:)
717:)
647:)
563:)
528:)
484:/
452:•
448:•
439:•
430:-
426:-
416:•
412:•
390:•
381:•
377:•
368:•
359:•
337:•
333:•
324:•
312:•
303:•
299:•
290:•
262:•
258:•
249:•
245:•
236:•
232:•
223:•
219:•
207:•
198:•
194:•
185:•
153:•
131:•
121:•
117:•
64:}}
58:{{
3953:.
3902:(
3885:(
3827:(
3805:(
3744:(
3703:(
3677:·
3672:(
3601:(
3561:(
3545:(
3507:(
3399:(
3359:(
3326:(
3311:(
3289:(
3208:(
3170:(
3091:(
3065:.
3059:.
3045:(
3013:.
3007:.
2958:(
2943:(
2925:(
2898:(
2883:(
2813:(
2768:.
2762:.
2735:(
2719:)
2717:)
2713:(
2668:(
2568:(
2551:(
2525:(
2503:(
2468:(
2439:(
2419:(
2395:(
2377:(
2335:(
2320:(
2300:(
2284:(
2215:(
2180:(
2162:(
2132:(
2105:(
2091:(
2076:(
2039:(
2024:(
1996:(
1884:(
1869:(
1827:(
1810:(
1734:(
1699:(
1669:(
1642:(
1619:(
1556:(
1539:(
1524:(
1510:(
1492:(
1468:(
1452:(
1364:(
1345:(
1303:(
1287:(
1178:(
1116:(
1092:(
1069:(
1046:(
1012:(
985:(
970:)
966:(
947:(
931:(
908:(
890:(
869:(
809:(
729:(
713:(
678:·
673:(
643:(
559:(
524:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.