Talk:Vertebral subluxation/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>D. Matt Innis No edit summary |
imported>Gareth Leng No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:No problem! You probably needed a break:) It is really neat to watch things transform and "mature" as you make your changes. Like always, you've kept the concept and said it better. I am curious about the science section (more as a student:), did I misinterpret it, or did you think it wasn't necessary? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 07:35, 12 January 2007 (CST) | :No problem! You probably needed a break:) It is really neat to watch things transform and "mature" as you make your changes. Like always, you've kept the concept and said it better. I am curious about the science section (more as a student:), did I misinterpret it, or did you think it wasn't necessary? --[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 07:35, 12 January 2007 (CST) | ||
No, no misinterpretations. I guess I saw the general case as mainstream established science, not new or controversial, and I thought that presenting it there made it seem new or controversial, especially by picking a few primary studies rather than quoting reviews. I'll come back to this though, and think again.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:58, 12 January 2007 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 10:58, 12 January 2007
Hi Matt, well done. I've done a first run copy edit, culled out some bits that seemed to me to be rather introspective argument, and tried to put in a couple of bits based in part on the comments in the Talk page on WP. I'll come back to this, but I've bust my specs so ...Gareth Leng 07:23, 12 January 2007 (CST)
- No problem! You probably needed a break:) It is really neat to watch things transform and "mature" as you make your changes. Like always, you've kept the concept and said it better. I am curious about the science section (more as a student:), did I misinterpret it, or did you think it wasn't necessary? --Matt Innis (Talk) 07:35, 12 January 2007 (CST)
No, no misinterpretations. I guess I saw the general case as mainstream established science, not new or controversial, and I thought that presenting it there made it seem new or controversial, especially by picking a few primary studies rather than quoting reviews. I'll come back to this though, and think again.Gareth Leng 09:58, 12 January 2007 (CST)