| Revision as of 03:54, 16 December 2008 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Larry Sanger!← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:05, 16 December 2008 edit undoSciencewatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,388 edits →Hopefully helpful suggestion: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{cquote|Having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out.}} | {{cquote|Having seen edits like this, it does seem that Jimmy is attempting to rewrite history. But this is a futile process because in our brave new world of transparent activity and maximum communication, the truth will out.}} | ||
| == Hopefully helpful suggestion == | |||
| I think we (probably) share similar opinions on ]. However I would urge you to try to be more reasonable and work with other editors who have opposing or different views. Constantly re-adding deleted comments to people's talk pages, and not allowing historical info that you don't agree with, isn't helping. As others have said, MEDRS doesn't apply to the historical info, only the medical info. At the very least you'll just get people's backs up, and you might even get blocked. There is a lot of work that needs done to the article, and it is difficult, but forcing your changes simply won't work. I've done quite a lot of editing on ], ] and other controversial articles, and while I'm certainly not perfect I have learned to work better with opposing editors and have found that you end up with a better article in the end if you work with rather than against editors with strong POVs. --] (]) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 04:05, 16 December 2008
Hopefully helpful suggestion
I think we (probably) share similar opinions on Chiropractic. However I would urge you to try to be more reasonable and work with other editors who have opposing or different views. Constantly re-adding deleted comments to people's talk pages, and not allowing historical info that you don't agree with, isn't helping. As others have said, MEDRS doesn't apply to the historical info, only the medical info. At the very least you'll just get people's backs up, and you might even get blocked. There is a lot of work that needs done to the article, and it is difficult, but forcing your changes simply won't work. I've done quite a lot of editing on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia and other controversial articles, and while I'm certainly not perfect I have learned to work better with opposing editors and have found that you end up with a better article in the end if you work with rather than against editors with strong POVs. --sciencewatcher (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)