User talk:73.189.34.128

May 2020
Hello, I'm Amkgp. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Craniosacral therapy have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. ~Amkgp ( ✉ ) 06:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Hi Amkgp. Could you please elaborate on how it was not constructive? In my opinion, adding carefully worded claims backed by sources is very constructive. I would also like to know how your claim that the source is a 'minor journal written by fans' is at all constructive. Surely, you should criticize the content, not the form or the authors. I think a well done meta-study should always be taken serious and not just swatted away because it's not in a 'major journal'. The meta-study is very clearly stating, by the way, that it's not clear why CST works ("the specific mechanisms of CST are still understudied"). 84.60.58.65 (talk) 11:32, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I got confused about who you were talking to. 84.60.58.65 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are not suppose to express your personal views as per Wikipedia guidelines as you did here. Remember its not WP:FORUM. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. ~Amkgp ( ✉ ) 13:59, 10 May 2020 (UTC)