User talk:86.130.216.70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The key word here is "no convincing evidence.", the NHS article does support that statement. Tim Vickers 16:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Adam Cuerden talk 16:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
They can find no convincing evidence to support the use of homeopathy, the positive studies that are available are of low quality and thus unreliable. I agree that it would be wrong to say there is no evidence to support the use of homeopathy, but it is entirely correct to say there is no convincing evidence. Tim Vickers 22:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Homeopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.