2059:
regard and, consequently, they needed to be treated according to their integration in the mainstream or acceptance by the public. So, if yuo wish, I will make the time to discuss specific concerns that you might have (offline/email) and we can move this dialogue further, but I just don't know how we can truly break this cycle until skeptics begin a paradigm shift edit CAM pages with a more discerning eye and be current on the evidence. Because I can tell you 100%, a lot of the views of the allopathic (mainstream) medical doctors views on CAM is not congruent with a) the recent literature b) reality of daily practice c) on par with the mainstream views of their own profession. I would love to hear your views in an email
Jonathan, sorry for the big reply but I think that we needed to clarify some of the many misconceptions that are out there. Cheers.
1962:
evidence-based chiropractor. We're all adults here and being to the point about perceived indiscretions by
Eubulides with respect to chiropractic-related articles (note that I'm specifying) is fair game. Many editors have difficulties in communicating with Eubulides who, IMO, acts as a judge, jury and executioner at chiropractic which is causing many, many headaches and ultimately prevents the co-operation between proponents and opponents of chiropractic care from moving forward in a productive manner. To be blunt, Eubulides promotes the fringe of chiropractic as mainstream (in terms of weighting issues) and presents the fringe of medicine as mainstream. Whether or not its wikilawyering re: MEDRS, cherry picking sources, omitting reliable sources, failing to get the point, using
2196:
we need to be careful about making blanket statements like that. Also, I don't think we should note Homola by name; we don't do
Haldeman who is a much bigger researcher and player in chiro land. The Kaptchuk reference (1998, Annals of Int Med) has a beautiful sentence that states something along the lines of "although the validity of spinal joint dysfunction (subluxation) as a critical component to health requires further investigation....". That's definitely a NPOV statement (by an MD no less) that is spot on, doesn't put down straights or mixers and get s the point across. It's this type of tone and editing that is required to make chiropractic featured status worthy.
2048:
of without proper research. It seems that yourself and others are under the impression that certain editors are infalliable and if they're dealing with a CAM professional well, they HAVE to be right, because CAM is fringe. Are you aware that CAM professionals outnumber the "mainstream" (aka orthodox) medicine? Who's mainstream or fringe now? Lastly, it has been argued that CAM/Alt med is fringe and hence that sets the tone and stage for the article. Chiropractic has been compared to homeopathy specifically. Fringe and fringe, according to skeptics. Do you agree with this, if so why and what is your reasoning based on?
331:
as scientific as an MD (" ...best to treat the more science minded editors with a little bit of patience.") don't fly with me, or any other contemporary chiropractor. I'd also like to note, that the proposed section was discussed on chiropractic talk for over a week. I followed all the rules and then-some. This, IMO, is simply more obstruction from the medical community who can seemingly do no wrong, know everything about every profession and impose their will on autonomous, complementary professions. In the end, the truth will come through, like it always does. G'night gentlemen.
1768:
1079:- a degree is NOT required to practise kinesiology in all the countries en.wikipedia.org covers. It certainly is not required in the UK. Similarly, there are formal degrees available for homeopathy & acupuncture in the US and the UK, but there is no requirement for someone to gain one before practising as a homeopath or acupuncturist. Therefore the article is incorrect & misleading and should be amended.
1266:. My goal is to provide expertise to all chiropractic articles, but all physical medicine. I just want to get "home turf" cleared out first because it's long overdue . Ultimately, the medical editors here are going to learn, accept and respect the emergence of scientific chiropractors and given the opportunity to be productive (which I can't with all the obstructionism (look
1589:
beyond rationale but into the pathological. If you are indeed a good contributor, to ALL of wikipedia, then a topic ban will blow over and you can resume editing. But we're trying to work on serious medically related articles. These articles require expertise and a heightened sensitivity for NPOV. You bring neither. Please desist from writing on my talk page any further.
1345:
type of thing is probably more readily applicable to medical related topics, but it should be food for thought as an effective approach at a) reducing the heterogeneity of the same topic while b) being an effective mechanism at increasing the quality control and content of the project whilst c) preventing stupid POV wars and disruption. Thoughts?
213:
84:
to reliable published sources. And the only way such people can know that something is relevant to a topic is if an expert tells them in a reliable published source that "ABC is related to HIPPO". The rules and structures are such that an artifact is produced by the players. (The aforementioned artifact is an encyclopedia called
Knowledge.)
270:
especially by an editor by with a rather obvious conflict of interest, are likely to be treated with suspicion. The fact that it's being made on a page where advocates have had a history of pushing pseudoscience surely exacerbates the problem. It'll go a lot better if you take it slow and propose changes slowly and piecemeal.
61:"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view."
2375:
by mixers (aka
Gatterman and Leach). While the core chiropractic belief that the correction of spinal abnormality is a critical health care intervention is open to debate. This should be in the lead and nicely summarizes the controversy of subluxation both internal and external to the profession. What do you think?
2328:"While the core chiropractic belief that the correction of spinal abnormality is a critical health care intervention is open to debate". This is how dealing with subluxation is done properly." If only more skeptics could write in such tone that gets the point across but doesn't slam the whole profession. My 2c
80:
know the policies and be under a lot less stress - you will be needled by more experienced game-playing editors who just want you to lash out so you can be blocked. But you'll have seen it all before editing articles that don't mean a lot to you. Assuming you don't take that course, here is an inaccurate tale.
1917:
who has rebuked
Eubulides for potentially engaging in a covert edit war at Chiropractic? Because, for the record, myself and many other editors there have had major issues with Eubulides style of editing and have had a very difficult time communicating with him our concerns regarding his edits which
1681:
Oh my. I don't know how yourself, Dematt and other could have made it. I was going insane after 3 months! A topic ban will make things much improved for both skeptics and proponents. Rational debates can be had and there are skeptics who bring better references to the table anyways resulting in a
1635:
Agreed. There should be more than enough evidence and diffs to validate the case. It's late, going to bed. I had not anticipated the sudden last minute drama; but I felt it was important to make the comments I did. We'll see where it goes and hopefully we can have a better editing experience here
1432:
I had been looking for a ref, yes, but actually checking for myself just now further than just reading those articles it seems valid to have in that intro list as is. I found it credible enough to ask (especially since based on your edits I got the impression that you would know), but I was not aware
1313:
if you have not kept abreast on the issues. The science will sort everything out; when a profession develops a sufficient literature base and equivocal regulation and licensing, it ceases to be FRINGE. Until then, we absolutely, must separate what CAM professions and/or modalities are considered to
1252:
up to snuff. Only, as of late, there has been a certain allopathic editor who wants the allopathic POV to trumps chiropractic POV (POV=science), and has constantly been blocking my efforts at any every turn usually over the smallest of things. And, it's not only me. There's between 4-5 editors who
1243:
We share similar goals; produce quality encyclopaedic content and providing our expertise on our respected professions. I want to foster good interdisciplinary relations here; and have in real life (I work at the community health centre with MDs, RNs RDs and OT. I am the NMS doc, and I'm completely
83:
There is a huge on-line game , very popular, sometimes thrilling and often addictive, in which anyone can play at being an encyclopedia editor. The rules are consciously chosen, and reiterated where necessary, to allow untrusted, deeply ignorant, just literate humans to work together using info cited
75:
as part of the WikiProject
Medicine. If you have time and access to resources showing that Medicine has had a illegal or unreasoning bias against chiro and that journals within your speciality are more relevant and reliable than medical journals then experimenting with the dispute resolution would be
2780:
Thanks
Coppertwig. Indeed I have made an attempt to refactor comments that distract away from the arguments being made. So, definitely, by all means, you have permission to strike out comments I may have missed. I appreciate your mentoring on this matter. I shall read the essay. Can you comment
2750:
I can search for phrases in my browser by using control-F, even within the edit window. If it's difficult for you to edit long threads, you can ask me to strike out comments for you (please be very clear and unambiguous about what is to be struck out). I'll strike them out and append in small font
2374:
Granted the WEIGHT and clinical signficance of subluxation differs between straights and mixers, given that straights are the minority, how do you propose we present it? Because it seems like the skeptics have focused a lot on the straight "definition" as opposed to the modernized theories espoused
1966:
tactics, there are severe issues which are coming to fruition with
Eubulides. And, I'm hardly the only one who has some, if not all, the concerns listed above. I'm frankly amazed (and impressed) with Arthur Rubins warning for 3RR edit warring to Eubulide re: chiropractic. It's been long overdue.
1228:
Sorry its taken me so long to get back to you. I am interested, of course. I'm sorry that I haven't responded earlier. I agree with you completely about cultural relativism. I also think that
Knowledge has great guidelines for dealing with this appropriately, but its still up to individual people
2650:
Stop harrassing me SA. You are being uncivil and are not AGF. My edits were supported by the sources. I have no more COI than Dematt. I have not inserted commentary or personal analysis and to suggest it is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. Please desist from spamming my talk page in the
2195:
I would think that History would be a good place, criticisms (you should draft this and I will work on it with you). Also note that Homola's and the straights "definition" of chiropractic (correcting vert sub) is not at all the "defintion" of chiropractic that I was taught or graduated under. So,
2058:
alternative medical practitioners approach things from a different angle should not mean that we are given a rougher go here. Also, I want you to note that not all CAM professions have the same literature base, professional recognition, lincensure, regulations, etc. Not all CAMs are equal in this
2047:
So, how do we move forward? First, let's have a conference and improve the communication here amongst admins and the general public. I have seen some disgusting amounts of gaming the system here with absolutely no desire by the admins to tackle the issues head on. Second, please stop accusing me
957:
but you definitely blur the line too much given your less than stellar history here. Also, looking at the big picture of your overall contribs (besides regularly edit warring and disruption chiropractic) I think you're due for a topic ban. It's been over a year; and the article is being repeatedly
620:
Actually it's quite relevant to our discussion because you've suggested that I was not scientific. So I made sure that there was no misunderstanding on this point. There is no such thing as "medical science" or "chiropractic science" it's all science. We're not talking about beliefs here either,
330:
My account had timed out and had signed it under my 208IP but promptly signed and added my sig to my comment. Anyways, I appreciate your feedback, from you both. Jefffire, you will soon discover that I'm not the "traditional" DC and that these little implications that suggest that I'm not equally
2389:
I have been trying to find a reference that clearly states mixers are the majority group. Maybe we can improve the schools of thought section. Is it clear to the reader about subluxation in the schools of thought section. I recommend any clarification be done in the schools of thought and internal
1349:
I removed this because it contains a bit of an attack on SA and the place where you posted it is inappropriate. You obviously do not enjoy editing with SA and that is fine. But do not bring your previous problems with him onto that page. That is not the purpose of the page. We are all aware of
1257:
out and, if you have the time, the Appeal to drop effectiveness section. There you will see a perfect example of civil POV pushing. I would appreciate to have the osteopathic input on this here, ultimately I feel the best, and fairest way to get all articles (and especially "controversial" ones
948:
suggests a certain fixation on the topic with less than stellar results or contributions. Your continued stall tactics on Chiropractic Scope of Practice is completely unfounded nor justified and clearly illustrated a certain tactical approach, and extremely trivial objections that could have been
788:
I've sought and gotten the opinion of experienced Wikipedians who suggest the contrary. Also, you're misrepresenting the issue, which is not surprising given straw man arguments are founded on that principle. Lastly, all your alleged grievances are completely without merit, the majority supports
773:
You may call it an appeal to authority, but you will find that Knowledge's policies are quite clear: mainstream journals are superior to minority journals. If the BMJ says something and a zero impact chiropractic journal disagrees, then the BMJ wins. As you wish this shall be my last message. But,
539:
which suggests I'm a disruptive editor. This wouldn't have to do with me being an editor who happens to be a chiropractor would it? I hope this isn't some kind of attempt to portray me as a liability to the project, you know, to get me blocked or banned. I would appreciate any clarifications if
269:
Ooo, looks like EncMstr beat me to it. I guess they are talking about . The "take two Valium" comment might not have gone down too well. Frankly a little bit of incivility doesn't bother me, but it might be best to treat the more science minded editors with a little bit of patience. Major changes,
31:
Hi just reading the contents of Archive 2. I suggest that you aquaint yourself with the dispute resolution mechanisms and use them as a matter of course whenever faced with unbalanced editors/administrators. It may take a little longer but it will avoid exciting times such as seen in Archive 2. As
2053:
Bottom line, skeptics get away with practically murder at CAM pages and proponents are buried in a hurry. Second class citizens, a xenophobic-like behaviour. You're Jewish, eh Jonathan? I'm sure you understand what's its like to be judged and dismissed because of stereotypes. The relavance of
1588:
song, "Best of You"? Well, looking through my archives, you once did get the best of me. No more. You have had a lot of chances to prove that you were a net contributor and had some kind of expertise in chiropractic. It's clear that you do not, that you have an unhealthy skepticism which goes
1344:
That leads to the question why wikipedia doesn't have a "expert consensus" version of a topic, that is used in other related articles. No need to have vastly different literature (if any!) and versions on a given topic, especially one that's incredibly well written and cited appropriately. This
996:
This is a fact, and continually changing it back won't make it any less true. You povide no source and you don't even mention which country you think these so-called degree requirements refer to (this is not just a US article). Quacks should admit that the whole quackery industry is unregulated -
914:
because the revert was indeed a deliberate act of vandalism that somehow went unpunished. And it's this type of behaviour and editing practices that are driving rationale, good contributing editors, myself included, into fits. The fact that this stuff is occuring at a Chiropractic is even worse
408:
Actually that was an abuse of admin privileges since they are not meant to make contested changes to protected pages. In am disheartened to see that instead of discussing the edits and references you are continuing on these soliloquies about "truth" and "justice". Discuss the material on the talk
79:
A suggestion - leave the chiro article alone for 8 months - go and edit a wide range of articles, hang out at a Wikiproject for a while working with other editors, get to see dispute resolution working and failing and what makes it work and what makes it fail. Then go back to Chiro. You'll get to
2013:
Jonathan it's hard not to get defensive when your messages strike a paternalistic and accusatory tone. I'm not battling, I'm disagreeing with the same few individuals who use questionable tactics (civil POV pushing, wikilawyering, etc...). Perhaps you can explain to me why I'm constantly being
1308:
goes out the window, and I'm suddenly anti-science and POV warrior. This type of outburst occurred on this very page. I would also like to make it abundantly clear that the "mainstream" orthodox medicine editors here are not representing the literature with respect "mainstream" attitude toward
558:
I deleted your comments because they broke up others talk page comments, making the page extremely difficult to read. Its generally considered poor form, and makes it very difficult for others to contribute in a meaningful manner. If you wish for the talk page to be useful place of discussion, I
1436:
I think if the matter is discussed in depth in that context it would need a ref connecting the ancient practices to the modern implementation. Consider as an analogy that both Democritus and Epicurus philosophized indivisible units, but modern atomic theory is not really built on their ideas. -
1961:
Sandy, after you've been burned and bitten as many times as me by you'd get some thick skin too. I've been treated like a fringe, anti-science, POV pushing derilect since I got here and have been completely disrepected by allopathic health care providers. This, despite the fact that I'm an
562:
It's still in poor taste to delete comments like that. I'd also appreciate not being lectured on how to use Talk, no editor had brought up any of the concerns you have. I'm going to restore my comments since they're directed to Eubulides, and not yourself. Thanks for stopping by (again).
1108:
No, it's a simple example to try to make my point as, for whatever reason, you were struggling to grasp it. Perhaps you can get a Kinesiology BSc - so what? This statement was in the article I edited: "Kinesiologists are professionals who have obtained a university degree from a recognized
750:
Nah, this is an appeal to authority fallacy and another straw man argument. You're dodging my argument. Suddenly peer-reviewed, indexed literature produced by DC/PhDs is fringe. That's probably the weakest line I've heard here yet. Also, I've noted your "put up or shut up" is far from
1158:
I am aware of it. I noticed who started the thread as well; the same admin brought it over to MastCell's page. They're keeping tabs on me; which is all good. They'll notice what I have to put it with and it will perfectly explain a lot of things that were left hanging previously.
490:
It's good to see you take my advice and move away from criticizing the scientific editors and instead making meaningful discussion on the sources. You are however mistaken on the relative strengths of the different sources. Those produced by mainstream sources are always stronger.
2611:
you said "Citations were done using the cite button ..." (14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)) Could you tell me how to do that? I used to use something called a "bookmarklet" that formatted citations automatically, but it stopped working. I've been formatting citations by hand. Thanks
1461:
Result: "The result was no consensus, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say."
958:
abused by disruptive edits, POV pushing, blind reversions. Now, I want you to please respect my wishes and stay off my talk page. It's going on 4 months that you've been baiting me, harassing me, canvassing against me, and all the other BS I've had to endure. No more.
789:
the edits, I bring strong scientific sources, it was written NPOV and a neutral admin even concurred. So your point is? What don't you understand about evidence-based medicine and evidence-based practice? Because, judging by your comments, I think there's severe
2747:
I would appreciate it if you would seriously consider striking out a couple more comments: "You're being owned, Filll.", which was apparently deleted and put back, and "Your asinine comments", which I also mentioned above and which you may have forgotten to strike
2114:
Most are anonymous. We can do it by phone in teh US and Canada too, and by computer outside North America. You can listen to some examples on the website above and read some of the text. You can participate by text and just listen over your speakers if you want.
390:. It's rare it happens so what it does, it's doubly sweet. I knew all along the section was NPOV and most importantly, very well cited. It's nice to see an admin step up make the right call. Ultimately it was the PROJECT that was strengthened here, not just
131:
543:
I hope you will stop inserted text between another specific editors comment. It is hard to follow and confusing. I will revert the edit. You can readd the text but do it after the comments. This will help avoid any confusion and any misunderstanding.
594:, non-mainstream sources are suitable for sourcing beliefs of various practitioners, but not for verifying factual claims. Authoritative reviews in high impact journals for example are well respected in scientific circles, and make good citations.
2138:. In 2006, Samuel Homola stated "Although the definition of chiropractic as a method of correcting vertebral subluxations to restore and maintain health is questionable, spinal manipulation is of value in the treatment of some types of back pain."
1878:. I am interested in setting up a Arrested Development Taskforce to improve articles related to Arrested Development. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name
531:
Upon further review, I see that you've gone to lengths to point out that I'm in disagreement with "scientific" editors implying, gently, that I am not scientific. I want this to be unmistakably clear: I'm an evidence-based practitioner. As in
1682:
better article. QuackGuru's tendentious editing style, his frequent edit warring, disruptive practices, and countless other violations at Chiropractic need to be reigned in. His contributions do not outweigh his liabilities, specifically at
735:
Your dearth of scientific experience is showing. Knowledge guidelines clearly state that mainstream journals are much better sources than fringe sources. If you don't like that, you can either put up, or shut up. There's no getting around it.
2014:
treated like a second class citizen here? I notice that you have no problems defending those who espouse a mainstream position, but not so the minority. I don't know where your concerns are coming from but let's get some facts straight:
1837:
2098:
This sounds interesting. Unfortunately, my MacBook is on the fritz and the PC doesn't have the nice bells and whistles (headset/mic). I could always install Skype, but how does this work? Are we anonymous, use real names, etc?
423:
Naturally, disagreed. Look at the chiropractic talk pages. I'm there and have been there in some form consistently since Jan 08. What about you? I hardly think it's abuse of admin priviledges, it rather a deft application of
589:
That you self identify as a "scientific editor" is irrelevant to me. Your approach is so far betraying a general unfamiliarity with scientific practice. Medical science is the most authoritative source on all medical claims. Per
809:
with no concern for conflict of interest. So, again, another weak argument. Lastly, don't think I don't know for a second what's going on here, baiting me and trying to get me blocked. Anything to supress knowledge, right,
536:. I graduated from an evidence-based school in 2006. I have a BSc (Hons) in Kinesiology. Please don't question my scientific credentials. Also, I would appreciate if you not make misleading edit summaries as you done
2054:
that statement is that its absolutely horrible to dismiss and judge someone based on their religion, ethnic background, skin colour, etc. So why is it different with professionals working in health care? Just because
625:? I'm well aware of journal searching and know the levels of evidence, I've had that a lot during my 8 years of university. So, to get this straight you are associating chiropractic scientists (DC/PhDs) with
1607:
I support your proposed investigation of QG, BUT with a caveat. His expertise has nothing to do with his rights here. It's his edit warring and lack of collaboration that are the problem. Focus on that. --
2443:. This reference clearly states mixers are the majority. I would defer to Dematt who actually has the Leach textbook (Chiropractic theories) that gives readers a modern representation of subluxation.
1093:
The article is factual and well sourced. Kinesiology is a bachelor of science degree. To be talking about acu and homeopathy here is a red herring and I suggest we stick to the topic at hand. Thanks.
1854:
This is a very good source and can definitely add important NPOV content to the article. Is the author a DVM? It would be helpful to know as if it's written by a DC the usual skeptics will cry foul.
2347:
Your proposal seems more like a definition than history information. It is not that simple. There are many definitions. There is "internal conflicts" over exactly what is the meaning of subluxation.
1838:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SSN0jWhVP70C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=how+to+become+an+animal+chiropractor&source=web&ots=VBPXngasgr&sig=1n76MbLR5aDoemeVsmoMqOa7Avc&hl=en
1109:
University". They MAY have a degree - but there is no requirement for a kinesiologist to have a degree; therefore this statement is incorrect. It is a very poor article but at least the new edit (by
2742:
1714:
Try to watch your language on the talk page and not get too worked up. Don't want to give them any ammunition. Also, since you're on 1RR, don't re-insert too much of the sourced text in one day.
1372:
I take it "SA is infamously known by myself and many others for having a non-judicial attitude towards CAM subjects and Chiropractic specifically. Also, it doesn't look good when he pops by the
1967:
His name has already been brought up at ANI and I can think of 7 editors off the top of my head who agree that something has to give with his editing style at chiropractic and other articles.
1047:
important difference to note. Anon might be best served by typing in Kinesiology in google and he/she can see it's a formal university degree definitely in Canada, but also in the US I think.
2785:
source is representative of mainstream expert scientific opinion, or is a "chiropractic document" as suggested. We've been debating this for 4 months now and could use impartial reviewers.
1913:
Lastly, SandyGeorgia, is it customary for experienced editors (such as yourself) to act as proxies or a personal communications officer and lobby an adminstrator (Arthur Rubin) as you did
1293:
1) SA is infamously known by myself and many others for having a non-judicial attitude towards CAM subjects and Chiropractic specifically. Also, it doesn't look good when he pops by the
2709:. It's poor strategy to say things like this: it can be used against you later, and it causes a distraction that makes it harder for everyone to make progress on the real content issues.
1201:
I have encountered similar borderline civility issues here on my talk page (which I subsequently asked him not to write on). So far so good with that; hopefully he changes approaches;
2675:
I expected as much from SA. Thanks for the heads up; I was going to strikeout the comment but SA deleted my comments from the Talk page (as he has a habit of doing lately). Cheers.
2830:
Thank you for the notice. Have you found any evidence that suggests chiropractic is fringe, btw? Also see my rebuttal of your claim that the TaskForce is dominated by chiropractors
442:
Your free to believe whatever you like. However the admin edit was reverted, and other editors on the talk page are usefully discussing the matter despite your refusal to do so.
1747:. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--
2083:
sometime. We would love to have you. You can see the details on that page. It works best if you download and install Skype and have a headset with microphone available.--
1322:
and avoid the needlessly long POV pushing and disruptive edits. The same logic should be used to distinguish the professional merits of CAM professions. For example,
907:
Quack, to suggest that I don't know my collaboration, discussion and NPOV is laughable, especially coming from you of all people. Also, might I remind me you that admin
345:
With the recent drama unfolding, I'd recommend taking a short wiki-break, step away from WP for a bit, and when you come back, it may be a bit more sorted out already.
774:
given your conflict of interest, tendentious editing practices and general opposition to proper scientific sourcing, you will end up being blocked soon enough anyway.
2240:
We can problably do better than Homola's statement. I think the defintion has changed over time and chiropractors have different definitions that contune to this day.
2003:, I am going to revert my good faith unblock of your account. You've now had second and third chances, yet the same combativeness persists. Please take my advice.
944:
You've found a way to civilly, yet consistently disrupt Chiropractic in one form or another for over a year now. A look at your lengthy and consistent block log on
1477:
Pretty sure the sources are used appropriately; the content is there for all to see. Thanks for bringing me up to speed, I guess we can get rid of that banner now?
251:
If you could provide a diff on an alleged attack that would be grateful. Otherwise I would please ask that you desist from making unfound allegations. Thanks.
2532:
The current, global definition of subluxation is already in chiropractic under the vertebral subluxation subsection. Are you asking information about theory?
2030:
I have been verbally harassed, threatened via email, been called many uncivil names with no rebuke from any admin because the editor(s) are friends with admins
2021:
There are several editors who fundamentally disagree with the tactics of chiro skeptics which is a significant contributing factor to the recent problems there
1248:"skeptic" editors, (I have 3 on the list with a total of about 6-7 who, since Jan 08, have actively engaged in supressing and disrupting my efforts to bring
359:
I'm heading to band practice right now, taking a much needed break from the unncessary drama here. Your thoughts would be appreciated on the talk sections.
2741:
Thank you very much for striking out some comments. Maintaining self-control can be very difficult sometimes. You might want to have a look at my essay
513:. Also, please don't delete my comments in the Talk page. That's in poor taste. Lastly, explain to me in why the "word" of an MD/PhD with respect to
505:
Hey, let's get one thing clear. I'm a scientific editor. To insinuate that I am not, like you've being done this whole thread is being interpreted as
1330:
who has a vastly superior body of research (which is improving by leaps and bounds) as demonstrated by the recent clinical practice guidelines draft
1229:
to follow those guidelines or not. I feel that a lot of information is being censored, because a small but vocal minority find it "controversial."
2024:
There is a defacto endorsement of "valuable" editors such as QuackGuru despite the overwhelming amount of evidence presented that suggests otherwise
1879:
1304:
be given a fair shake (especially under the current editorial philosophies and constraints). For example, it seems the minute I declare I'm a DC
2727:
I'm so used to being attacked regularly that sometimes the barbs come out. I will strike out the comments. Thanks for your input, Coppertwig.
1413:
practice. Neither of those pages indicate any connection except tenuously through alternative medicine. Is there something I am missing here? -
1253:
share the same concerns and raise the same points. Which he has never addressed, or addressed well enough that the 5 regular editors. Check
305:
2632:
It's not soapbox ScienceApologist to cover Education, Licensing and Regulation. It's a fundamental part of the profession. Deal with it.
1114:
1080:
998:
1300:. So, I don't see how Wikipedians who work with or are and in CAM professions could ever really be productive; offer their expertise and
517:
trumps the "word" of a DC/PhD. Because what I'm seeing is that in Chiropractic, medical opinion has the final say. You agree with this?
559:
would recommend reverting it back and rewording your views into a concise single entry. Otherwise progress will be much more difficult.
216:
Welcome to Knowledge. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
1350:
SA's history and understand not all editors enjoy working with him. But let's drop the matter on that particular page. Take it up at
931:
archive and this Talk page that you're simply trying to be disruptive; again displaying the same traits and behaviours that you do at
838:
394:, which is the big picture. Hopefully we won't have the same needless charade on chiropractic Education, Licensing and Regulation.
2660:
Just to let you know that the above has been filed by ScienceApologist. It's resolved - Vassyana has already warned you about it.
1875:
2390:
conflicts section. The lead briefly mentions subluxation. Today, what do the majority of chiropractors think about subluxation.
793:
going on here, you know, debating with a scientific chiropractor. I find it pretty interesting too how medical doctors such as
291:
1788:
1442:
1418:
2033:
I am working towards obtaining a PhD and I'm being treated as an "anti-science" "POV warrior" and other attacking comments.
373:
And it appeared to work. Maybe something going on behind the scenes? But SOP was re-inserted into the article by an admin.
217:
2705:
Re your comments "Filll has just discredited himself with a stupid comment", "Your asinine comments" etc.: please review
860:
846:
1267:
1800:
1309:
Chiropractic specifically and CAM generally. Citations are available, of course, upon request. Prepare to have some
1376:
and starts interjects himself in a middle of a contentious discussion and patently makes a false declaration here:
1326:
which virtually has nil literature and regulation in any jurisdiction should not be placed in the same category as
1297:
and starts interjects himself in a middle of a contentious discussion and patently makes a false declaration here:
1496:
1780:
1775:
299:
231:
2027:
There are kamakazi style editors who blindly revert at chiropractic thus triggering and/or prolonging edit wars
1963:
1737:
1730:
1500:
1118:
1084:
1002:
935:. You are hiding behind an invisible cloak of civility, but you're still violating the spirit of the project.
58:"Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views."
2839:
2790:
2732:
2680:
2637:
2537:
2448:
2380:
2201:
2104:
2064:
1972:
1923:
1859:
1691:
1641:
1594:
1482:
1388:
1278:
1210:
1164:
1099:
1052:
979:
963:
856:
842:
764:
702:
634:
568:
533:
522:
480:
433:
399:
364:
336:
256:
194:
110:
17:
1952:
1944:
and to take greater care in the language you use to describe other editors; I'm doing that now. Regards,
837:
it really pisses people off and can be considered disruption if you continue - link to content instead. --
295:
225:
36:. Bringing such cases to dispute resolution will help WP work better for reasonable and rational editors.
1991:
Knowledge is not a battleground for real world controversies. Please take your editorial differences to
1940:
being templated like an ordinary vandal. It is also common for uninvolved editors to issue reminders of
2665:
890:
There are still some POV issues that need to be fixed before the Scope of practice is restored. Agreed?
1262:
is to have editors, such as yourself, who have demonstrated expertise consistently on a given subject (
1072:
Whether there's a formal degree or not is irrelevant. The fact is that - contrary to what this article
2759:
2715:
2620:
1823:
1410:
1310:
1263:
1193:
1188:
908:
790:
151:
146:
119:
114:
759:. If that's the way it's going to be, I'll ask that you not come to my talk page anymore. Thanks.
2820:
1932:
To answer your question, yes, it is quite common for uninvolved editors to remind other editors of
1906:
1887:
1406:
1319:
1095:
1017:
895:
802:
549:
92:
41:
2296:
and then reread the article. I'm pretty sure we can come up with something if we all collaborate
1363:
1270:
2835:
2786:
2728:
2706:
2676:
2633:
2533:
2444:
2376:
2197:
2100:
2060:
1968:
1919:
1891:
1883:
1855:
1844:
1719:
1687:
1637:
1590:
1478:
1467:
1446:
1422:
1384:
1383:
to be a PA but that was not the intent. I took me awhile to come up with non-judicial! Cheers.
1341:(which I hear all the time from a certain orthodox medical editor) is just a tad unfair, no?
1274:
1206:
1160:
1148:
1048:
975:
959:
852:
806:
779:
760:
741:
698:
664:
630:
599:
564:
518:
496:
476:
447:
429:
414:
395:
378:
360:
350:
332:
275:
252:
190:
1936:
when they see an editor in good standing, with a clean block record, who is the author of three
928:
QG. It's clear now that you have intended to drive me off the project, one only has to look at
885:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AChiropractic&diff=206650929&oldid=206638618
475:. Nah this is bunk. I just commented on Talk (again). Nice to see you participate there too.
1741:
1244:
respected for my area of expertise. Yet, when I bring that expertise here, a select number of
929:
2696:
2608:
2435:
2257:
2159:
1945:
1235:
798:
313:
241:
221:
2782:
2661:
2423:
2306:
2245:
2222:
2151:
1815:
1744:
1671:
1617:
1511:
1359:
1029:
626:
591:
175:
911:
an independent, neutral, 3rd party observer restored it and even requested that it be kept
621:
so it's best we stick to the topic. Why are MD/PhD sources preferred to DC/PhD sources in
145:
Your recovery from blocked user to most valued contributor is an inspiration to us all. --
2843:
2824:
2811:
As a courtesy I mention here that I have filed a Knowledge incident noticeboard report at
2794:
2763:
2755:
2736:
2719:
2711:
2684:
2669:
2641:
2624:
2616:
2566:
2541:
2525:
2452:
2410:
2384:
2367:
2311:
2287:
2227:
2205:
2189:
2124:
2120:
2108:
2092:
2088:
2068:
2007:
1996:
1976:
1956:
1941:
1927:
1895:
1863:
1848:
1827:
1819:
1767:
1756:
1752:
1723:
1695:
1676:
1645:
1622:
1598:
1578:
1551:
1516:
1486:
1471:
1450:
1426:
1392:
1282:
1237:
1214:
1195:
1168:
1152:
1122:
1103:
1088:
1056:
1034:
1006:
983:
967:
899:
783:
768:
752:
745:
706:
668:
638:
603:
572:
553:
526:
500:
484:
451:
437:
425:
418:
403:
382:
368:
354:
340:
317:
279:
260:
245:
198:
180:
153:
121:
96:
45:
2169:
Do you have any suggestions on where would be the best place to put this little tidbit.
1318:
should no longer be considered fringe and be merged with the evidence-based equivalent,
2816:
2547:
2506:
2391:
2348:
2293:
2268:
2170:
2155:
2080:
2004:
1933:
1559:
1532:
1202:
1184:
1180:
954:
925:
891:
878:
870:
545:
88:
65:
55:
37:
2812:
2297:
2037:
1840:
1784:
1715:
1463:
1438:
1414:
1351:
1305:
1144:
1110:
775:
756:
737:
660:
595:
510:
506:
492:
443:
410:
374:
346:
271:
1273:
I hope generate some serious discussion about major problems with the project here.
2040:
by the wikipedia community at large and mainstream medicine proponents specifically
2000:
1937:
1811:
1796:
1792:
1683:
1585:
1373:
1327:
1294:
1259:
1249:
1230:
1179:
I filed a Wikiquette Alert earlier today. If he keeps it up, we can escalate it to
945:
932:
874:
866:
794:
694:
622:
514:
391:
309:
237:
224:. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
72:
32:
you have probably seen many skeptics have "gone beyond" the scientific method into
130:
2301:
2217:
1992:
1664:
1610:
1504:
1355:
1315:
1022:
1013:
168:
2216:
That Kaptchuk source is a good article, a secondary source at that, huh :-) --
2142:
Homola S (2006). "Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods".
51:
a view may be spelled out in great detail on pages specifically devoted to them
2116:
2084:
1748:
1338:
1334:
1323:
693:
Red Herring argument. Why is MD/PhD sources preferable to DC/PhD sources in
659:
Alt med is the fringe, mainstream medicine is (by defintion) the mainstream.
163:
2162:
2036:
Anyone who works in or supports complementary medicine is not extended any
1333:. Clearly the profession has matured to a point where any comparison with
2438:
2260:
953:
by Eubulides. I won't go as far to suggest there you are in violation of
1499:
is getting blocked and/or banned for other disruptions and edit warring.
1874:
Hey there. I couldn't help noticing that you appear to be interested in
212:
387:
294:
compelled me to respond. It's a little odd though: it was written by
912:
540:
I'm wrong. Have a great weekend, Jefffire, thanks for your concerns.
2505:
I would like to know what is the current definition for subluxation.
851:
There was no link to add to since it had been reverted and blanked.
2831:
1354:
if it is a problem. Otherwise, please participate constructively.
1254:
308:), but CoricoSpinal changed it to his signature 68 seconds later. —
228:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
1584:
It always has been the other around, Quack. You remember that
1142:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:AN#Multiple_identity_syndrome
2651:
future. I am removing your attacks. 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
2267:
I could not find the spot on NPOV statement. Any suggestions.
1636:
and stop the nonsense that's been going on since February 08.
1141:
2743:
User:Coppertwig/Techniques for handling emotions when editing
2703:). Re your own comments: I agree with much of what you say.
1766:
1529:
Your incivility towards me has never stopped. Knock it off.
949:
much better solved with tweaks than a revert war triggered
1736:
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the
1379:." this is the personal attack? Point noted that this is
915:
considering how long this stupid war has been playing out.
2424:"Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions"
2246:"Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions"
1918:
have not yet been addressed over the past 4 months now.
1331:
2700:
2135:
1914:
1557:
1530:
1377:
1298:
950:
884:
537:
2546:
Yes. What are the different theories of subluxation?
1314:
be mainstream. Under this guise, modalities such as
1799:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
1740:which has been proposed for use in the RfA process
2300:, or did you have something different in mind? --
1779:from editing for a short time in accordance with
1495:Congrats! The article is rescued and the one who
1012:In defense of CorticoSpinal's edits, scientific
1995:. If you continue to battle instead of using
1289:Civil POV Pushing (copied from Raul654's page)
8:
1662:With both Mac and QG it goes back years! --
1433:of the ancient roots of the modern practice.
832:
234:; if you not the same editor, I apologize.
2751:my signature and a diff of your request.
128:
1870:Arrested Development Taskforce Invite
409:page and this will go much smoother.
7:
109:Thanks for starting the new article
992:Kinesiologists do not need a degree
2422:Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM (1998).
2244:Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM (1998).
2156:10.1097/01.blo.0000200258.95865.87
833:don't dump half an article on AN/i
68:and check that above are current.
24:
2079:Please consider appearing on the
1205:should be used as a last resort.
1020:, the quack alt med practice. --
2691:Re chiropractic is fringe thread
211:
129:
87:Anyway I'm way past sleepytime.
697:? Suddenly science is fringe?
71:Your fellow editor is treating
1:
1803:by adding the text {{unblock|
1789:discuss controversial changes
220:other editors, as you did on
1787:. Please be more careful to
1113:corrects this untrue claim.
997:kinesiology more than most.
1795:rather than engaging in an
1781:Knowledge's blocking policy
1729:Please consider taking the
2860:
1757:13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
1724:05:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1696:06:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1677:06:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1646:06:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1623:06:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1599:06:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1579:06:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1552:06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1517:05:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1487:23:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1472:22:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
1451:18:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1427:00:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1393:05:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1364:05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
1283:03:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1238:00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1215:15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1196:07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1169:05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1153:05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1123:17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1104:17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1089:16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1057:14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1035:14:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1007:08:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
984:03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
968:03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
900:02:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
861:23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
847:23:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
784:22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
769:22:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
746:22:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
707:22:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
669:22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
639:18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
604:18:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
573:18:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
554:17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
527:16:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
501:14:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
485:13:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
452:13:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
438:13:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
419:07:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
404:04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
383:01:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
369:23:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
355:23:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
341:22:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
318:22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
280:21:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
261:21:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
246:21:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
199:13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
181:03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
154:03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
122:03:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
97:17:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
46:04:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
2813:WP:ANI#User:CorticoSpinal
135:
2844:16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2825:11:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2795:18:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
2764:17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
2737:02:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2720:01:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
2685:16:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2670:16:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2642:16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
2625:01:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
2567:19:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2542:17:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2526:02:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
2453:22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2411:18:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2385:17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2368:17:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2312:01:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2288:01:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2228:01:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2206:00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2190:00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2125:23:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2109:23:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
2093:21:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
2069:00:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
2008:19:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
1977:05:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1957:04:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1928:04:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1896:23:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
1864:04:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
1043:Thanks, Fyslee. It's a
801:, for example, can edit
1849:08:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1828:01:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
1686:and related articles.
1457:AfD Sports Chiropractic
1137:You are being discussed
534:evidence based medicine
111:Veterinary chiropractic
76:a learning experience.
18:User talk:CorticoSpinal
2697:Chiropractic is Fringe
2056:licensed and regulated
1771:
139:The Resilient Barnstar
2144:Clin Orthop Relat Res
1814:, per a complaint at
1770:
1288:
1185:let's just ignore him
1882:or contact me on my
1876:Arrested Development
1411:traditional medicine
1401:Traditional medicine
1311:cognitive dissonance
1264:Osteopathic Medicine
791:cognitive dissonance
507:as a personal attack
2130:citation usefulness
1907:User talk:Eubulides
1502:How ironic...;-)--
1409:as an example of a
1407:spinal manipulation
1320:medical acupuncture
1221:Sorry for the delay
1183:. In the meantime,
1018:applied kinesiology
1016:is not the same as
803:Allopathic medicine
2781:on whether or not
2001:dispute resolution
1793:dispute resolution
1783:for violating the
1772:
887:<-- POV issues
807:Doctor of Medicine
105:In appreciation...
2749:
2710:
2609:Talk:Chiropractic
1964:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
1938:featured articles
1801:contest the block
1785:three-revert rule
1745:User: Kim Bruning
799:User:Orangemarlin
222:Talk:Chiropractic
159:
158:
2851:
2754:
2746:
2704:
2615:
2564:
2563:
2560:
2557:
2554:
2551:
2523:
2522:
2519:
2516:
2513:
2510:
2442:
2408:
2407:
2404:
2401:
2398:
2395:
2365:
2364:
2361:
2358:
2355:
2352:
2309:
2285:
2284:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2272:
2264:
2225:
2187:
2186:
2183:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2166:
1949:
1805:your reason here
1576:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1556:Please stop now.
1549:
1548:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1233:
215:
133:
126:
125:
2859:
2858:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2809:
2752:
2695:I commented at
2693:
2658:
2613:
2605:
2561:
2558:
2555:
2552:
2549:
2548:
2520:
2517:
2514:
2511:
2508:
2507:
2434:(20): 2215–24.
2428:Arch Intern Med
2421:
2405:
2402:
2399:
2396:
2393:
2392:
2362:
2359:
2356:
2353:
2350:
2349:
2307:
2282:
2279:
2276:
2273:
2270:
2269:
2256:(20): 2215–24.
2250:Arch Intern Med
2243:
2223:
2184:
2181:
2178:
2175:
2172:
2171:
2141:
2132:
2077:
1989:
1947:
1903:
1872:
1835:
1808:
1764:
1734:
1712:
1573:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1537:
1534:
1533:
1527:
1459:
1405:You just added
1403:
1291:
1231:
1223:
1177:
1139:
1077:formerly stated
994:
986:
909:User:SWATjester
882:
835:
296:208.101.118.196
232:208.101.118.196
209:
107:
53:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2857:
2855:
2847:
2846:
2808:
2805:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2797:
2771:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2692:
2689:
2688:
2687:
2657:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2604:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2597:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2466:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2265:
2241:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2209:
2208:
2131:
2128:
2112:
2111:
2076:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2050:
2049:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2034:
2031:
2028:
2025:
2022:
2016:
2015:
1988:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1902:
1899:
1871:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1834:
1833:Animal Source?
1831:
1773:You have been
1765:
1763:
1760:
1733:
1727:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1602:
1601:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1497:raised the AfD
1490:
1489:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1434:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1367:
1366:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1222:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1115:86.165.198.169
1081:86.165.198.169
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1038:
1037:
999:86.165.198.169
993:
990:
988:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
939:
938:
937:
936:
919:
918:
917:
916:
881:
864:
834:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
556:
529:
509:and a lack of
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
323:
322:
321:
320:
285:
284:
283:
282:
264:
263:
208:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
189:Thanks, team!
184:
183:
157:
156:
142:
141:
136:
134:
106:
103:
101:
52:
49:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2856:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2836:CorticoSpinal
2833:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2826:
2822:
2818:
2814:
2806:
2796:
2792:
2788:
2787:CorticoSpinal
2784:
2779:
2778:
2777:
2776:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2744:
2740:
2739:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2729:CorticoSpinal
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2722:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2708:
2702:
2698:
2690:
2686:
2682:
2678:
2677:CorticoSpinal
2674:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2655:
2649:
2648:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2634:CorticoSpinal
2631:
2630:
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2610:
2602:
2568:
2565:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2539:
2535:
2534:CorticoSpinal
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2445:CorticoSpinal
2440:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2420:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2409:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:CorticoSpinal
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2366:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2339:
2338:
2337:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2313:
2310:
2305:
2304:
2299:
2298:in good faith
2295:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2266:
2262:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2247:
2242:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2229:
2226:
2221:
2220:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2198:CorticoSpinal
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2188:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2139:
2137:
2129:
2127:
2126:
2122:
2118:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:CorticoSpinal
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2061:CorticoSpinal
2057:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2045:
2039:
2035:
2032:
2029:
2026:
2023:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1986:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1969:CorticoSpinal
1965:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1920:CorticoSpinal
1916:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1908:
1900:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1856:CorticoSpinal
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1839:
1832:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1777:
1769:
1761:
1759:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1739:
1738:AGF Challenge
1732:
1731:AGF Challenge
1728:
1726:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1709:
1697:
1693:
1689:
1688:CorticoSpinal
1685:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1638:CorticoSpinal
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:CorticoSpinal
1587:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1550:
1531:
1524:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:CorticoSpinal
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1400:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:CorticoSpinal
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1275:CorticoSpinal
1272:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1232:Bryan Hopping
1226:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1207:CorticoSpinal
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1191:
1186:
1182:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:CorticoSpinal
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1136:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:CorticoSpinal
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:CorticoSpinal
1046:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1004:
1000:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:CorticoSpinal
969:
965:
961:
960:CorticoSpinal
956:
952:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
934:
930:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
913:
910:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
888:
886:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:collaboration
865:
863:
862:
858:
854:
853:CorticoSpinal
849:
848:
844:
840:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
761:CorticoSpinal
758:
754:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
708:
704:
700:
699:CorticoSpinal
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
670:
666:
662:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
640:
636:
632:
631:CorticoSpinal
628:
624:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
605:
601:
597:
593:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
574:
570:
566:
565:CorticoSpinal
561:
560:
557:
555:
551:
547:
542:
541:
538:
535:
530:
528:
524:
520:
519:CorticoSpinal
516:
512:
508:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
489:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
477:CorticoSpinal
453:
449:
445:
441:
440:
439:
435:
431:
430:CorticoSpinal
427:
422:
421:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
405:
401:
397:
396:CorticoSpinal
393:
389:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
361:CorticoSpinal
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
333:CorticoSpinal
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
319:
315:
311:
307:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
281:
277:
273:
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
253:CorticoSpinal
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
233:
227:
223:
219:
214:
206:
200:
196:
192:
191:CorticoSpinal
188:
187:
186:
185:
182:
179:
178:
173:
172:
171:
165:
161:
160:
155:
152:
150:
149:
144:
143:
140:
137:
132:
127:
124:
123:
120:
118:
117:
112:
104:
102:
99:
98:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
74:
69:
67:
62:
59:
57:
50:
48:
47:
43:
39:
35:
34:righteousness
26:
19:
2810:
2694:
2659:
2606:
2603:cite button?
2431:
2427:
2302:
2253:
2249:
2218:
2168:
2147:
2143:
2140:
2133:
2113:
2078:
2055:
1990:
1904:
1886:. Thankyou,
1873:
1836:
1812:Chiropractic
1809:
1804:
1774:
1735:
1713:
1684:Chiropractic
1672:
1665:
1663:
1618:
1611:
1609:
1586:Foo Fighters
1555:
1528:
1512:
1505:
1503:
1460:
1404:
1380:
1374:hornets nest
1343:
1328:Chiropractic
1301:
1295:hornets nest
1292:
1260:Chiropractic
1250:Chiropractic
1245:
1227:
1224:
1189:
1178:
1140:
1076:
1073:
1063:
1044:
1030:
1023:
1021:
995:
987:
946:Chiropractic
933:Chiropractic
889:
883:
850:
839:87.114.7.178
836:
795:User:Antelan
695:Chiropractic
623:Chiropractic
515:Chiropractic
474:
392:Chiropractic
302:
230:Also warned
229:
226:welcome page
210:
176:
169:
167:
166:to that! --
147:
138:
115:
108:
100:
86:
82:
78:
73:Chiropractic
70:
63:
60:
54:
33:
30:
2707:WP:CIVILITY
2662:Ncmvocalist
2136:this change
1525:please stop
1381:interpreted
1316:acupuncture
1014:kinesiology
2756:Coppertwig
2712:Coppertwig
2656:WQA on you
2617:Coppertwig
2150:: 236–42.
2134:I noticed
2075:Invitation
2038:good faith
1820:EdJohnston
1807:}} below.
1339:Homeopathy
1335:Flat Earth
1324:Homeopathy
1225:Hi there,
1190:Levine2112
871:discussion
511:good faith
207:April 2008
148:Levine2112
116:Levine2112
2817:Eubulides
2292:Start at
2005:Jehochman
1999:forms of
1993:mediation
1987:Mediation
1905:<from
1884:talk page
1816:WP:AN/3RR
1710:Vet Chiro
1187:. :-) --
1111:Mccready)
892:QuackGuru
810:Jefffire?
627:WP:Fringe
592:WP:Fringe
546:QuackGuru
292:this edit
290:Actually
89:SmithBlue
38:SmithBlue
2607:Hi. At
2163:16446588
1942:civility
1888:Joelster
1841:DigitalC
1797:edit war
1791:or seek
1762:May 2008
1716:DigitalC
1464:DigitalC
1439:Eldereft
1415:Eldereft
1246:die-hard
1175:Jefffire
1145:DigitalC
924:No more
776:Jefffire
753:WP:CIVIL
738:Jefffire
661:Jefffire
596:Jefffire
493:Jefffire
444:Jefffire
426:WP:SPADE
411:Jefffire
375:DigitalC
347:DigitalC
306:contribs
272:Jefffire
2439:9818801
2294:WP:NPOV
2261:9818801
2081:WP:NTWW
1948:Georgia
1934:WP:DTTR
1810:3RR on
1776:blocked
1203:WP:AN/I
1181:WP:AN/I
955:WP:MEAT
926:WP:BAIT
873:is the
388:Justice
310:EncMstr
238:EncMstr
66:WP:NPOV
56:WP:NPOV
2308:(chat)
2303:Dēmatt
2224:(chat)
2219:Dēmatt
1666:Fyslee
1612:Fyslee
1506:Fyslee
1356:Baegis
1352:WP:ANI
1306:WP:AGF
1074:states
1024:Fyslee
757:WP:NPA
218:attack
170:Fyslee
64:Go to
2117:Filll
2085:Filll
1997:civil
1946:Sandy
1909:: -->
1749:Filll
1271:scars
1258:like
164:drink
162:I'll
113:. --
16:<
2840:talk
2832:here
2821:talk
2791:talk
2783:this
2760:talk
2748:out.
2733:talk
2716:talk
2701:diff
2681:talk
2666:talk
2638:talk
2621:talk
2538:talk
2449:talk
2436:PMID
2381:talk
2258:PMID
2202:talk
2160:PMID
2121:talk
2105:talk
2089:talk
2065:talk
1973:talk
1953:Talk
1924:talk
1915:here
1901:DTTR
1892:talk
1880:here
1860:talk
1845:talk
1824:talk
1753:talk
1720:talk
1692:talk
1673:talk
1642:talk
1619:talk
1595:talk
1513:talk
1483:talk
1468:talk
1447:talk
1423:talk
1389:talk
1360:talk
1337:and
1302:ever
1279:talk
1269:and
1255:this
1211:talk
1165:talk
1149:talk
1119:talk
1100:talk
1085:talk
1053:talk
1045:very
1031:talk
1003:talk
980:talk
964:talk
951:here
896:talk
879:NPOV
869:and
857:talk
843:talk
805:and
797:and
780:talk
765:talk
742:talk
703:talk
665:talk
635:talk
600:talk
569:talk
550:talk
523:talk
497:talk
481:talk
448:talk
434:talk
415:talk
400:talk
379:talk
365:talk
351:talk
337:talk
314:talk
300:talk
276:talk
257:talk
242:talk
195:talk
177:talk
93:talk
42:talk
2834:.
2807:ANI
2432:158
2254:158
2152:doi
2148:444
1743:by
877:to
875:key
755:or
428:.
2842:)
2823:)
2815:.
2793:)
2762:)
2745:.
2735:)
2718:)
2683:)
2668:)
2640:)
2623:)
2562:ru
2559:Gu
2556:ck
2553:ua
2540:)
2521:ru
2518:Gu
2515:ck
2512:ua
2451:)
2430:.
2426:.
2406:ru
2403:Gu
2400:ck
2397:ua
2383:)
2363:ru
2360:Gu
2357:ck
2354:ua
2283:ru
2280:Gu
2277:ck
2274:ua
2252:.
2248:.
2204:)
2185:ru
2182:Gu
2179:ck
2176:ua
2158:.
2146:.
2123:)
2115:--
2107:)
2091:)
2067:)
1975:)
1955:)
1926:)
1894:)
1862:)
1847:)
1826:)
1818:.
1755:)
1722:)
1694:)
1670:/
1644:)
1616:/
1597:)
1574:ru
1571:Gu
1568:ck
1565:ua
1547:ru
1544:Gu
1541:ck
1538:ua
1510:/
1485:)
1470:)
1449:~
1441:~(
1425:~
1417:~(
1391:)
1362:)
1281:)
1213:)
1167:)
1151:)
1121:)
1102:)
1087:)
1055:)
1028:/
1005:)
982:)
966:)
898:)
859:)
845:)
782:)
767:)
744:)
705:)
667:)
637:)
629:?
602:)
571:)
552:)
525:)
499:)
483:)
450:)
436:)
417:)
402:)
381:)
367:)
353:)
339:)
316:)
278:)
259:)
244:)
197:)
174:/
95:)
44:)
27:Hi
2838:(
2819:(
2789:(
2758:(
2753:☺
2731:(
2714:(
2699:(
2679:(
2664:(
2636:(
2619:(
2614:☺
2550:Q
2536:(
2509:Q
2447:(
2441:.
2394:Q
2379:(
2351:Q
2271:Q
2263:.
2200:(
2173:Q
2165:.
2154::
2119:(
2103:(
2087:(
2063:(
1971:(
1951:(
1922:(
1890:(
1858:(
1843:(
1822:(
1751:(
1718:(
1690:(
1640:(
1593:(
1562:Q
1535:Q
1481:(
1466:(
1445:)
1443:s
1421:)
1419:s
1387:(
1358:(
1277:(
1209:(
1163:(
1147:(
1117:(
1098:(
1083:(
1051:(
1001:(
978:(
962:(
894:(
855:(
841:(
778:(
763:(
740:(
701:(
663:(
633:(
598:(
567:(
548:(
521:(
495:(
479:(
446:(
432:(
413:(
398:(
377:(
363:(
349:(
335:(
312:(
303:·
298:(
274:(
255:(
240:(
236:—
193:(
91:(
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.