Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 13: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (archiving and starting over again literally) |
imported>D. Matt Innis (→In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward: here's my reasoning) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward== | ==In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward== | ||
I think we bit off more than we could chew when we tried to make some much needed adjustments to the current approved version of [[Homeopathy]] by making too many changes at once. Ideally, I think the process should take it one step at a time. I've looked at the history of changes and taken the first group of changes that were made mostly to the science sections by our science editors. I then replace the intro with the intro from tha already approved article, because that seemed to be something that was agreeable to we three editors that approved the article initially. Hopefully, that would lead to a more likely chance of getting the incremental changes that would be improvements rather than total rewrites. I thought this might be a rational place to start. | |||
From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:12, 2 September 2009
In an effort to move this forward, I've gone backward
I think we bit off more than we could chew when we tried to make some much needed adjustments to the current approved version of Homeopathy by making too many changes at once. Ideally, I think the process should take it one step at a time. I've looked at the history of changes and taken the first group of changes that were made mostly to the science sections by our science editors. I then replace the intro with the intro from tha already approved article, because that seemed to be something that was agreeable to we three editors that approved the article initially. Hopefully, that would lead to a more likely chance of getting the incremental changes that would be improvements rather than total rewrites. I thought this might be a rational place to start.
From here, I will take another look and see if I feel it is something that I can nominate for approval. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)