| Revision as of 02:19, 13 February 2008 editCorticoSpinal (talk | contribs)1,880 edits →Credibility: new section← Previous edit |
Revision as of 02:21, 13 February 2008 edit undoQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → |
| Line 72: |
Line 72: |
|
|
|
|
|
<span style="position:absolute;top:-40px;left:-125px;z-index:-1">]</span> |
|
<span style="position:absolute;top:-40px;left:-125px;z-index:-1">]</span> |
|
|
|
|
<big>http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Chiropractic#copyright_violation</big> Copyright violation. Is anyone reading this? ] (]) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Credibility == |
|
|
|
|
|
You have been exposed, GQ. You have blatantly deceived all the editors on the chiropractic and other CAM pages you edit by suggesting that you did not write, insert and try to maintain your original research. Your practice styles section is a direct ] from many sites. You even admitted to authoring it yourself on your chirotalk forum. |
|
|
|
|
|
Your profound ties to ], ] and ] leave little room for you contribute in an honest and constructive manner on the chiropractic page. Many experienced editors have questioned your ability to work towards a consensus, and your continuous attempts to cite quackwatch and stephen barrett as scholarly equivalent research is disingenius to say the least. Please refrain from ] me and suggest that you move to a more productive and cooperative style. Thanks. ] (]) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
