Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 25 July 2007

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Request for Comment:Template creation and implementation. There is a dispute over how content is included and displayed as well as some issues regarding wiki guidelines and policies. 08:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award. This is a dispute as to whether an exhaustive list is necessary where the Silver Buffalo Award article already has a list of notable recipients. 01:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Military academy This is a dispute about how The Citadel (military college) should be listed in relation to other military colleges and colleges with corps of cadets. - 17:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Circumcision- Does the circumcision Topic respect the Jewish tradition?TipPt 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Circumcision- Should the Topic include research on pain relief in "Pain and pain relief during circumcision"?TipPt 15:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Sexual harassment in education#Request for Comment - This is a dispute about whether (and how) to include a reference to an essay published in Harper's Magazine10:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Right_to_bear_arms#RFC_Summary - A dispute related to the legal aspects of the right to bear arms. 16:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Circumcision- Does the article comply with WP:NPOV, or forward religious pro-circ misinformation (also by omission of cited fact)?
• Talk:Competition law - Does the article comply with WP:NPOV and fairly represent Chicago School views? 09:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Lolicon#Request for Comment - Does the current image belong in the article? 02:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Competition law - Is the article too long? Should a link to an external website be pointed out in the article text? 02:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Talk: 2007 Philadelphia Phillies season The Phillies are at 9,992 losses. They are about to cross the 10,000 loss threshold, the first team to do so. The fact keeps getting removed from the article by a couple of editors saying that it is original research and predicting the future. They also keep arguing things like, well the team could go bankrupt or they could all die in a plane crash. Does anyone mind weighing in? ---- 16:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:St. Mark's College (University of Adelaide)#Request for Comment: Use of College Roll Book to Claim Notable People Have Attended the College Can a college roll book be used to claim high-profile people attended the school? 09:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:List of collegiate secret societies#Request for Comment. Should redlinked secret societies, with no articles and no sources, be added to this list? 23:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Perineum: Should Taint (slang) be merged into Perineum? 16:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• ¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 03:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Toupee#List of known toupee wearers Dispute over application of BLP policy and removal of trivia. 01:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Rugby union#Request for Comment: Capitalization of title - dispute over the capitalization of the title (whether it constitutes a proper noun or not, i.e. "Rugby Union" or "Rugby union"). 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Baylor School#Request for Comment - a dispute has arisen over whether or not to include Charity Navigator's assessment of Baylor School and ranking of the school among the "10 Highly Paid CEO's at Low-Rated Charities" in the article. 00:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Man - Should the lead image be a photograph of a man or a photograph of a statue? 05:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Emo (slang) User is reverting a major article-wide clean-up by making irrelevant and untrue assertions about one minor point of the clean up, refusing to further justify or discuss the reversions. 03:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act Self-referential definition, uncited assertion of the motives of unnamed others, conspicuous absence of cited and relevant information. 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Large_Group_Awareness_Training#RFC_Summary Dispute about the appropriateness to add to this article two templates {{Cults}} and {{Psychology navigation}} 20:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:Nordic theory#Nordic Theory is not the Nordic Race (RFC). Should Nordic race redirect to Nordic theory? 09:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder#RFC - how much does race factor into these murders and should details about possible mutilations be included. 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Race#Request_for_comment - the article is quite large and may need to be broken down according to wikipedia summary style04:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Template Talk:Palestinian ethnicity#Request_for_Comments - How should the picture on an ethnicity template be chosen? What criteria can be used? The discussion is much more interesting than this, but for neutrality's sake, I'll leave it in dry dioplomatic language. 15:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Institute of National Remembrance - discussions regarding importance and scope of lustration plus few other issues are deadlocked, leading to revert war and protections. Comments from outside neutral parties needed.18:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Electroconvulsive therapy#Request_for_Comment comments on a neutrality dispute are desperately needed.15:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Advance_fee_fraud/RfC - A few points. Firstly, should all non-cited entries be deleted? Secondly, is it worth making it a warning to people, to avoid them falling to this scam, or not? And finally, how should the talk page, which is used to discuss the subject, be treated? 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - The link above is to an RfC poll on a sub-page connected to the article's talk page. For the article's talk page itself try Talk:Advance fee fraud. Thanks Blueboar 13:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Adolescent sexual behavior - Neutrality dispute, one editor is annoyed with another 14:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Multiple personality controversy#Request for comment. Should Multiple personality controversy be merged back into Dissociative identity disorder, from whence it came? Only four people are actively discussing the issue, more eyeballs needed. 17:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
• Talk:English people#Request for comment. What data to include in the infobox for the English people article? The New Zealand census produced a statistic in 1996 that had "a tendency for respondents to answer the 1996 question on the basis of ancestry (or descent) rather than 'ethnicity' (or cultural affiliation)" according to Statistics New Zealand. This figure was 281,895. In the 2001 and 2006 censuses the figures for belonging to the "English ethnic group" were ~35,000 and ~44,000 respectively. Should we use a range thus 35,000-281895 in the info box, or should we just use the ethnic group figures? 09:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Lacrosse#Request for Comments regarding LaCrosse (redirect page). There is a dispute over whether LaCrosse should redirect to lacrosse (the sport) or to lacrosse (disambiguation). 02:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Joji Obara#Rfc Ethnic origin mentions There is a long-running dispute over whether the opening paragraph is an appropriate place to point out a rape-murder suspect's ethnicity. Would like as many comments as possible - any comments, long or short, are welcome. 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Circumcision#Waste_time_just_to_find_agreement_violated.2C_or_pick_a_better_version Is there bias for an "authentic" bris versus the Mogen clamp? Is the outline emphasis on religion and "benefits" bias? Is Sexual Effects dishonest by omission? Is Policies of various National Medical Associations a gross misrepresentation of their positions? Four editors (Avraham, Jakew, Jayjg, and Nandesuka) collude to prevent improvement. Please consider an alternative (sandbox proposal ]).TipPt 15:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:University of Wisconsin#Request for Comment: University of Wisconsin redirect-Violation of NPOV, no promoting and no Academic boosterism. Miaers 17:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Scientific misconduct#Dulbecco's law (RfC) Does "Dulbecco's Law" merit mention on the article for scientific misconduct? Is it notable enough? Should notability even be considered, or is it only a factor in determining whether a separate article should be established? 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This posted on-line university lecture entitled An old and a recent example of scientific fraud. specifically mentions "Dulbecco's law" and defines it. I often heard the expression during my rather checkered career in the sciences (Such personal knowledge is OR, but, I have some expert knowledge here and so know the cites). So I am certain that there are other cites out there. But this should be enough. This is "folklore", a la List of medical abbreviations. I would not include it without a reference, but there is one. BTW, these days, many scientific articles only appear in on-line forms.Pproctor 03:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#Leaders_of_ACT_not_Licensed: Is it appropriate to say the leaders of this organizations are not licensed mental health practitioners? Do the the citations support this claim? Does this information unbalance the neutrality of this article? 03:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)