| Revision as of 00:26, 15 August 2006 editCri du canard (talk | contribs)339 edits →Clinical and medical topics← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:01, 22 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,664 edits Removed: Talk:Decline in insect populations. |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
⚫ |
<noinclude> |
|
{{shortcut|] or<br>] or<br>]}} |
|
|
|
{{rfclistintro}} |
|
{{RFCheader|Mathematics, natural science, and technology}} |
|
|
⚫ |
</noinclude> |
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
===Clinical and medical topics=== |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
*]. Is it appropriate for a wikipedia article on orthomolecular medicine to have lengthy technical quotations (including "Over 40% of the population is hetro- or homo-zygous with the thermolabile variant of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase") from a medical journal that never mentions or endorses orthomolecular medicine, and whose author, ], has never mentioned or endorsed orthomolecular medicine, or is it better to simply note with appropriate citations "Some orthomolecular proponents claim Bruce Ames as one of their own because of research he has done on nutrition, though his articles neither mention nor endorse orthomolecular medicine"? 00:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Should the article’s infobox reflect EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6? This question stems from the fact the infobox inputs can only accept a single set of values (i.e. EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6, not both). The EF2/T4 rating comes from a peer reviewed paper by ] and Stuart Robinson with the Haag Engineering Co. in the ] in August 2006. The F3/T5-6 rating comes from the ] (TORRO), the creators of the ], T-scale, . |
|
*Foreskin ] is reverted by Jakew without cause to be pro-circ. Please see these repeat reversions without constructive comment, and the content corrections thwarted. |
|
|
*] and ] Is the statement of leading medical societies that these disciplines propound unsubstantiated claims and propose dangerous "cures" relevant, and is the repeated deletion of cited evidence to this effect justification for a POV tag that is also repeatedly being deleted by CAM supporters? |
|
|
*], ], ] and ], among others. I am getting carpet bombed by '''proven''' POV warriors and "new" editors every other week who cannot or will not read & understand the prior discussions & current mainstream scientific references (i.e. 2005-6 NIH, NAS articles) before launching a jihad of insults and counterfactual blather, billboarding ((totallydisputed)), etc as their "ultimate priority" negative opinion. Is there some more efficient way to deal with unreasonable POV dumping like the ''']''' and various forms Wikilawyering to keep an article continually "blockaded" by uninformed (-able) contentious editors?--] 03:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*:You've a couple of options for situations like this. If it's blatant vandalism and sockpuppetry you're up against, you can request various forms of admin assistance at ]. If it's merely a POV dispute, a good place to start is the ] who try to find mutually agreeable compromises; it's good to start there before going to the formal ] or ] as it shows ''you'' accept that the other editors may well be acting in good faith. If they choose not to participate in informal mediation, it only strengthens your case when going through the official channels. |
|
|
*:The other thing I would '''''highly''''' recommend is getting yourself a ] ''first''. It will make any of the above processes far far easier. --]<sup>]</sup> 07:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Is orthomolecular medicine a pseudoscientific theory? |
|
|
*] Dispute for third time re essential Notability of entry or if Notability dependent on related reported event. Need extensive third party 'mediation' as both editors stating (and documenting) that the other is (effectively) not according with WP criteria on a number of very specific (WP criteria) points. Long dispute already, controversial subject.12:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] Needs 3rd party input on a variety of issues, including reliability of sources and accuracy disputes. 17:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Christopher Gillberg is a Swedish scientist "accused by some" (but not convicted) of scientific misconduct. How big attention should this get in the article about him? Should he be in category Scientific misconduct? How much attention should it get in the lead section? 17:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - help needed in reaching consensus about splitting some content into a ] article 23:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - dispute whether the ] should be inclusive of a little-known theory on the role of chromium and "glucose tolerance factor" 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) ] 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] another edit war, unable to end due to CAM supporters enthusiasm. 06:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since the infobox can only contain one set of the ratings, this discussion more or less needs to determine which source (Haag Engineering Co. or TORRO) should be the infobox source. |
|
===Biology and related=== |
|
|
|
*'''Option 1''' — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper. |
|
*] Should the images of ], and similar photographs on ] and ] be displayed directly (inlined) or linked? 03:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*'''Option 2''' — F3/T5-6 using the ] paper. |
|
*]. Should an image of human feces be displayed directly (inlined) or linked? 11:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Edit war in progress over broad vs. narrow definitions. 09:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] An anon, asserting that ] is offensive, is making a point of having it not displayed inline. ] 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
===Abortion=== |
|
|
|
''']''' |
|
* ] - There appears to be a conflict between content based on reliable sources vs. content that survives a contentious bipartisan debate that may or may not have sources. The result has been a lot of reversion, endless arguments over the definitions of basic terms, and allegations of sectional biases. More sources and neutral, outsider commentary welecome. 03:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? ] <sup>]</sup> 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the tornado image in the article, including whether it was truthfully even taken in Cookeville. The image mentions it was taken from Reddit, and searching the image on Reddit reveals a high level of skepticism even from users there. I propose that this image be discussed and potentially removed unless it can be otherwise proven that the picture was taken in Cookeville on March 3. ] (]) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? ] (]) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
|
|
|
Is the blog ] in whole or in part, a ]? ] (]) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
''']''' |
|
|
{{rfcquote|text= |
|
|
Which picture should be used in the lead? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<gallery> |
|
===Mathematics=== |
|
|
|
The Blue Marble (remastered).jpg|'''A:''' Color-calibrated picture <small>''(])''</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
The Earth seen from Apollo 17.jpg|'''B: ''' NASA picture {{br}}<small>''(])''</small> |
|
::''Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
|
Earth Seen From DSCOVR.jpg|'''C: ''' 2018 NASA image {{br}}<small>''(])''</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
</gallery> |
|
*] Dispute over whether al-Khwarimzi was an Arab or a Persian. 03:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Physical science=== |
|
|
::''Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
::''Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at ]'' |
|
|
|
|
|
* ] -- To use a quote, or our own description? 01:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Telecommunications and digital technology=== |
|
|
*] Disagreement over whether lengthy discussion of the nuances of the ] number that appears in the ] vs. the actual PageRank number belongs in the ] article. Relevant edit: --20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] This started with a discussion between me and an anonymous editor about what links should be included in the external links section of the Diff article, then I proposed ] infobox. The anonymous user is questoning my motives because my software is listed in the infobox. ] 23:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Deadlock about article ]. Article was redirected after public discussion to Motorola ] which is unrelated. Sure we couldn't edit 68k and add infos in it about Amiga virtual machines because we will commit false if we redirect to an article some topics that are unrelated. It is not fair for all wkipedia readers. Two editors (see Talk) were so kind not to answer my objections to resolve privately this dispute. Seems they do not want any friendly resolution, but only the article to disappear. But article was well written and describes not a neologism but a new category (see its history to verify it all). I ask community for some comments about reverting the article and give it back visibility to public. --] 08:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Argument over whether to include numerous fact tags. Editor is refusing to discuss and threatening to revert on sight. 22:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Technology and engineering=== |
|
|
*] - A slow moving edit war has been raging for entirely too long (months) here regarding the true history of the Australian company Telectronics, which was a pioneer in the pacemaker industry. The primary disputants are one of the top two guys at the company and the son of the now deceased other top guy. The dispute involves what role these two played in the early years of the company and the timeline of the corporate history. It has progressed to the point of legal threats, defamation, and personal attacks and needs serious attention.12:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A relatively minor dispute over whether or not to include the text "occasionally offline" after an external link, unfortunately resulting in a slow-moving edit war and no actual progress on the article. Outside opinions may help to end this cycle. 14:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - A dispute over the length and content of the Criticism section (especially when considered in relation to the length, tone and level of detail of the rest of the article and ]) has resulted in multiple reverts, with seemingly no resolution possible between editors either side of the fence. The dispute centres around of the article versus . 07:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Miscellaneous=== |
|
|
*]. There has been an ongoing dispute regarding whether the JD is a "doctorate" degree. However, the resolution of this necessarily affects the articles for ALL "professional doctorate" degrees; including, but not limited to, the MD, DDS, etc. (see ] for a complete list). 17:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. The article contained about seventy-five unsourced examples of "first-letter mnemonics," probably representing a mix of well-known but uncited mnemonics, unpublished orally transmitted folk culture, and original creations. Should the ], ], and ] policies be interpreted as allowing such material, on the basis that it is self-verifying (i.e. anyone can see by inspection that the initial letters of "'''K'''inky '''P'''eople '''C'''an '''O'''ften '''F'''ind '''G'''ood '''S'''ex match those ], ], ], ], ], ], and ], and the source of the mnemonic is of no practical concern)? 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*]. Is version of the article violative of the ] policy, and, if so, is preferable? 22:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*] This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<!--<nowiki>Add new items at the TOP. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign </nowiki>--> |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
<noinclude> |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|
| ⚫ |
</noinclude> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Prior discussion: |
|
] |
|
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
] (]) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
{{RFC list footer|sci|hide_instructions={{{hide_instructions}}} }} |
.jpg)
