| Revision as of 22:36, 2 April 2007 editGnixon (talk | contribs)2,977 edits →Technology and engineering: remove post with no link. Looks like someone just wanted help with their homework.← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:14, 4 April 2007 edit undoTearlach (talk | contribs)6,734 edits →Clinical and medical topics: Food and Drug Administration addedNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| ===Clinical and medical topics=== | ===Clinical and medical topics=== | ||
| *]: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, SPA concerns. Also does ] merit a separate article? 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *] - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | *] - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *] This is a form of bloodletting apparently common in the Middle-East, but obviously not accepted by Western medicine. The article does not reflect this; it is written by someone who obviously believes in its efficacy. Please help! 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | *] This is a form of bloodletting apparently common in the Middle-East, but obviously not accepted by Western medicine. The article does not reflect this; it is written by someone who obviously believes in its efficacy. Please help! 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:14, 4 April 2007
Shortcut- ]
Place requests within the appropriate section by subject, at the top of the section.
Biology and related
- Talk:Glyconutrient#Request_for_Comment: Latest revisions to Glyconutrient - Please help determine whether the latest set of revisions improve the accuracy and direction of the article as compared to the previous version. Should the article remain in its new form, be reverted, some portion of the old version moved to the new version, or some portion of the new article moved to the old version? 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Self-incompatibility in plants#Should We Split This Article? Following a discussion in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? I don't. 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Will_This_Article_Be_the_Main_Article_for_Fetal_Development.3F. This RfC involves the question of where information about fetal development should be presented. Should it be presented in the fetus article and then be summarized in the prenatal development article? Or the reverse? Until this question is settled, writing the fetus article will continue to be a nightmare. Thanks! 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Reversion_of_Photo. This RfC involves an image here that a user named Severa has repeatedly reverted. This is the first time that I have initiated an RfC (though I previously joined an RfC initiated by someone else). 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fetus I have attempted to put a {{neutrality}} tag on this article due the POV edits by one user Ferrylodge who continues to use this page (and others) to further his positions on abortion. I original removed a non-point of view edit, to have it reverted by the individual. Rather that engage in an edit war, I left the page alone for awhile, and then put the tag on the page, after seeing this individual continue in the same vein with other editors. The user removed it, saying I didn't explain why it was there (I felt the multiple existing discussions between this individual and others on the talk page was adequate). I replaced the tag, giving a full explaination on the talk page. He removed it again, claiming I didn't "clearly and exactly explain" what I had issue with. I would like opinion as to whether the neutrality tag is appropriate. 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Clinical and medical topics
- Talk:Food and Drug Administration: WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS, SPA concerns. Also does Criticism of the FDA merit a separate article? 21:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Stephen Barrett#Request for comment: Board certification - Disagreement over whether Barrett's board-certification status is relevant or notable enough to include in his article. 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Hijama This is a form of bloodletting apparently common in the Middle-East, but obviously not accepted by Western medicine. The article does not reflect this; it is written by someone who obviously believes in its efficacy. Please help! 19:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- BDORT. BLP, POV and OR concerns; subject of ArbCom ruling. 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_May_POV_of_Footnoted_Authors_Be_Mentioned.3F I hope it's appropriate to separate this RfC from the other one immediately below. This RfC involves subsections of the "Abortion" article which summarize main articles. The subsections cite various sources, many of which have POV issues that are described in the main articles. When I tried to insert the POV info into the "Abortion" article, others objected that the POV of the footnoted sources should not be mentioned. Thanks for any help with this. 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_Have_Reverts_Been_Made_Without_Explanation.3F An editor has reverted numerous edits, but refuses to provide any reasons for those reverts, beyond saying that the edits require consensus. No reason is given why the editor thinks that the edits do not warrant consensus. The pertinent Misplaced Pages guideline is here. 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Exercise physiology#Request_for_Comment This page has become an advertisement for the American Society of Exercise Physiology (ASEP). All attempts at moderation and neutral point of view have been thwarted by members of ASEP. Help is appreciated. 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Request_for_Comment Is there sufficient evidence to state that ADHD is neurological in nature? If so, how much weight should it be given compared to other views? Will require a literature review. 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Mathematics
- Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics
Physical science
- Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Physics
- Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Chemistry
Technology and engineering
- Talk:Swiftfox#Request for Comment: restricting articles to latest version number Please comment on exclusively restricting software articles to the latest version number. 12:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:NTFS#Request for Comment: NTFS acronym This is a dispute about the meaning of NTFS. Is it (a) "Native Transactional File System" or (b) "NT File System"/"New Technology File System"? 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:C++#appropriateness of external link - Please comment about appropriateness of an external link to a list of C++ related resources. 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Talk:Brake fade Contention lies between an explanation of drum brake failure caused by heat deformation of drums and gas bearing generated from brake material as opposed to loss of servo effect from change in friction coefficient. De facto evidence exists in the use of disk brakes today that have no servo and no total fade at high tmperatures. 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Fringe science
- Talk:Psychic#"Purported" Basically the dispute is whether "psychic" should be defined as someone with purported paranormal powers, or simply as someone with those powers (with mention later in the article that there is dispute that psychics exist ). 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)