User talk:SofieElisBexter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, you just created a new category called Boaron's remedies, and added Oscillococcinum to it. Did you mean Boiron? --BillC 16:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sorry
Man, you are right, sorry in my language it is Boaron but in French and English, Boiron, thank you very much indeed for you accurate and timely comment. -- SofieElisBexter 16:31, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
- Hello again. Just a point: first, if you are making minor (small) edits, you don't need to enter "small" in the edit summary. Now that you have a user account, you can click in the box marked 'This is a minor edit'. That way you can enter text in the edit summary that describes the changes you have made. --BillC 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
-
- Im not exaactly new but except for writing issues i dont know much things. For exaple im not happy that i cannot make issue about classical homeopathy, because it automaticaly refers to homeopathy, but then there is much diference in classical and non-classical homeopathy. I also make usually mistakes in titles, :)...., i knoe. -- SofieElisBexter 16:49, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
- Ok, i discovered how to change this :))
- Im not exaactly new but except for writing issues i dont know much things. For exaple im not happy that i cannot make issue about classical homeopathy, because it automaticaly refers to homeopathy, but then there is much diference in classical and non-classical homeopathy. I also make usually mistakes in titles, :)...., i knoe. -- SofieElisBexter 16:49, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
-- SofieElisBexter 16:52, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
[edit] Classical homeopathy
Hi, welcome to Wikipedia; are you going to work further on classical homeopathy, or could I just revert it back to the redirect (there's information in the main homeopathy article)? --CDN99 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure I will, but do you think I can do it per day. Look. Misses are quite much here and you are not helping me with deleting my stuff...And y is that? It is not fair, besides the Bach issue is too short. Rather too short. If you have an oppinion better tell me. --SofieElisBexter 20:30, 1 January 2006 (GMT +2)
- Sorry I didn't check back here. I haven't deleted any of your work yet, I'm just suggesting that classical homeopathy be redirected to homeopathy and your information merged into that article. There is a rather large section comparing complex and classical homeopathy in the main article. --CDN99 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- aha, I will look over, may you be right.SofieElisBexter 10:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- I just read the classic vs non-classic section. I dont like it. Its true. Its definite. Its proper, its profetional. But i dont personally like it.
- Its hard to read, not making it exactly clear what is and what is not classical homeopathy, i think the seperate issue may be needed to have a broader explanation of that point, where can be showned:
- classic homeopaths, or homeopaths regarded as classical, ie with other words or as they say i dont think you will get that but in literature is said the CANON. so it must be an issue and broad one for the homeopathic canon. What is it. Because otherwise it is like something we all know , but ask someone to define it, well it was about Mono-Poly remedies. I dont think this alone exhausts the point. There are certain premises in homeopmathy underlying structures, thoughts not clearly spoken. For me.
- the section is good and should stay such because it is written for a first say about the point. For such it is good to be there in the issue homeopathy. It is not intended to be broaded probably, and to merge will be both hard and not wise, since you will fuck up the both texts. They - my and the other have diferent logics and intentions. I have to say i too much respect the short text written in homeopathy to merge my with it, but at the same time feel it like not sufficient to keep it only. Also,
- People need alone issue about classical homeopathy to look over, otherwise we cen merge all the existing issues in that for homeopathy - why not. But thats y we have a category. Isnt it? SofieElisBexter 10:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- aha, I will look over, may you be right.SofieElisBexter 10:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry I didn't check back here. I haven't deleted any of your work yet, I'm just suggesting that classical homeopathy be redirected to homeopathy and your information merged into that article. There is a rather large section comparing complex and classical homeopathy in the main article. --CDN99 03:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Bach flower remedies
Sofie, not sure if you are aware but Category:Bach flower remedies is up for deletion see WP:CFD#Category:Bach_flower_remedies_to_Category:Homeopathy. --Salix alba (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I put that category up for merging with the main Category:Homeopathy as it contained only 3 articles. Do you have an idea of how much it is likely to grow? If it is valuable, please chime in at the link above. --JohnDO|Speak your mind 14:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
