" 

 ==Talk:Acupuncture - moved section== 

 Greetings Eldereft  just wanted to let you know I've moved recent discussion from the top to the bottom of the page in a new section:  Changing the introductory paragraphs (2).  cheers,    

 == Energy == 

 Your continued attendance to the ""energy (spirituality)"" debate would be welcomed by at least this contributor, if you'd be so kind as to respond to the rationale there explained.    

 == Graphs and the blind == 

 I agree with this revert, but the reason given (""the graph speaks for itself"") isn't quite right. Wikipedia is intended to be useful to the blind, who can't see the graph. The caption in question didn't need the extra adverb, so this revert was fine, but in general it's helpful for blind readers if captions repeat the graph.    
 : Point taken, and describing the information presented is just plain good style even for the seeing audience. I try to remember that this encyclopedia is read by the blind, non-native speakers, &c;, but do feel free to correct me when I slip up. And yeah, you are correct that that was an adverb, too. -  ~~  

 ==SOHP== 

 I included a link to the newsletters published to the web by the Society for Occupational Health Psychology because the newsletters provide information about a new organization that is concerned with a facet of health psychology that has emerged relatively recently. The newsletter articles are largely nontechnical and accessible to the general readers. ~ISS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    
 : I have copied this comment and replied at Talk:Health psychology. -  ~~  

 :: I have some expertise in occupational health psychology within the health psychology article. I am trying to improve the description of OHP.  ISS246 Moved to appropriate section. -  ~~  

  
 Hello. Whom do I ask about getting the rating of the Health Psychology page raised above ""Start Page""?  It is far from a feature, but it is better than it was. Thanks for your help.  ISS246 
 : Seems to have been taken care of while I was out. I have not myself dabbled in that particular corner of Wikipedia, but for future reference I believe that anyone not intimately connected to the article in question may go over it and assign a rating. Such people may be found at the relevant wikiprojects. Good and Featured articles require more rigorous and formal review: WP:FAR. -    

 ==RfC:Chiropractic profession is fringe== 

 Eldereft, I want to thank you for your input at the chiro challenge.  I very much appreciate your objective, logical and sensible view on this.  We should have done the challenge 4 months ago when all the drama started, but it took awhile for the issues to really play out.  Although I might not be around to see the final outcome I do want to say that it took guts to come out and say what you did and actually listen to the arguments and evidence presented.  And for that, I am extremely grateful, whatever the outcome.  I just wanted to be heard fairly and believe, as I always do, that in time, science and research will support or refute the claims.  If chiro is primarily for NMS, as the evidence demonstrates, then it should be not be shackled by the rules of WP:FRINGE as it currently is.  If that is my legacy here, great because it was based on reputable sources, both academic and layman and not the innuendo and personal opinion of a handful of skeptics who treated it as fringe without the evidence to support such a stance.  Bob Dylan said it best ""times are a changin'"".  Very best, [[User:CorticoSpin