| Revision as of 22:07, 14 March 2007 editTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 12:03, 15 March 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits remove issues older than a monthNext edit → |
| Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
*] - Should each entry in this list be individually sourced? -10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
*] - Should each entry in this list be individually sourced? -10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
*]Improper use of ref tag as platform for making unsupported point. 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
*]Improper use of ref tag as platform for making unsupported point. 16:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
*] – following removal of a major POV vandal/warrior, the research and usage of neuro-linguistic programming (documented and cited in depth) is felt to be seriously misrepresented by the present article, which still reflects the vandal's viewpoint that it is marginal, little used by credible bodies, and pseudoscience. Because of the damage sustained to the article during its 18 month trolling, help is requested from uninvolved editors to review the information summarized and to help ensure the article fairly reflects the subject and neither unfairly maligns it, nor unfairly exaggerates it. '''' 12:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] — disagreements over relevance and suitability of metrial on men who supposedly fall in love with prostitutes, as well as general concerns about length, detail, and tone of the article. 12:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Please comment on whether ] should be included in the category of Chinese holidays. 12:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Please comment on a revision of the first sentence of the article. 04:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] The article has been nominted twice for deletion both times the outcome was keep. An edit war has taken place in the past with this article and is on the verge of begining again. The aricle is heavily weighted to one POV. 00:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] An edit war currently exists with large blocks of information removed, including a contested classical reference. However, the article has already achieved "Start-Class" quality rating according to the Attacks abound in other articles, and they've spread here now. So far, users have commented on an "article cleanup" and "nice clean-up" when important sections get removed, threatening the article's quality. Also, edits often revert to poor style, including the passive voice. UPDATED 21:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] White people edit war on the relation of the term to the literal meaning of white prompted protection. In larger discussion, there is debate about whether (1) to describe white as literally inaccurate; (2) skin pigmentation/melanisation might be a better description; (3) the European historical context and/or Eurocentrism should be specified in the text; (4) whether color metaphors for race is an acceptable link. (5) Relevancy of definition of white in ] 16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC); restored as consensus not quite agreed 01:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Disagreement on placement of a section. Controversy surrounds whether article deals with USA specifically or is applicable to other jurisdictions. Comments would be appreciated. 20:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] claims are being made that is it advertising and spam 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
* ] Should ] redirect to ] or ]? This is turning into a two-person edit war (one of the parties being myself). I'd like a third-party's opionion on this. (Preferably several third parties.) 02:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign--> |
|
<!--Add new items at the TOP, NOT HERE. Use ~~~~~ (five tildes) to sign--> |