| Revision as of 21:36, 9 April 2007 editTHF (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,107 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:53, 10 April 2007 edit undoRadiant! (talk | contribs)36,918 edits clean out issues older than a month.Next edit → |
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
|
*] -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
*] -- Is a newly-added section "Principles of constitutional design" POV? 17:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
*Is appropriate? Note, a non-neutral RFC, admiteed by third party at the time, was filed last year by a ] which resulted in merge yet the current version is not identical and has new sources. ] 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
*Is appropriate? Note, a non-neutral RFC, admiteed by third party at the time, was filed last year by a ] which resulted in merge yet the current version is not identical and has new sources. ] 17:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
*] - a Dispute over whether a given quote is appropriate for the lead of the article. 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] — The smaller dispute is whether or not tamilcanadian.com may be used as a reliable source. The larger dispute is whether the ] are a Hindu nationalist party. 00:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - Is there a POV problem with listing groups referred to as cults in government reports, in the article: ]? 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC). |
|
|
*]- At least three editors involved in a prolonged dispute on ] and ] status of the entire article. Help needed!17:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - if a conspiracy theory of LaRouche is described in the article, and it involves prominent living individuals, is this a violation of ]? 15:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] Despite mutliple, credible sources provided that are in line with criteria elucidated at that page, and with Misplaced Pages policy in general, multiple editors are reverting inclusion of Palestinians into the ]. Sources provided have included UN Working Group on Indigenous Peoples reports that cite Palestinians as participants, and academic sources from comparative DNA studies to sociological studies, both by Israeli authors. The counter-arguments focus around the political bias of the UN and the characterizing of the sources provided as "dubious". Please come check it out. 03:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] - are recent changes to the article helpful and do they adhere to NPOV? Which of two versions of the article is preferable? 15:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] is a photoblog by an anonymous male, female, or transgendered person in San Fransisco who fanatically conceals their identity, and even sex. (odd, but that's their right) The <S>hagiography</S> article is largely OR and POV, and is mostly written by someone so enamored with Zombietime that his/her username is Zombiefan. What sourcing it does have largely comes from non-inclusionable blogs. I would edit it but the fact that an editor who I was falsely charged with Wikistalking has edited there. This article needs major work. Bring your pruning shears ;-)- 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*It has become apparant that after a couple of weeks User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong never intend on evaluating my 50 citations they have removed on the ] article. Their stated reason for removing them was that they felt I added too many citations in too short a period. Other than there not existing a Misplaced Pages Policy even remotely connected with this reasoning, it doesn't make sense. Are citations no good when they have been added too quickly? Does the slowness in the addition of citations make the citations more credible? User:Ishu claims that s/he will evaluate each citation edit-by-edit to determine if they warrant inclusion in this article which sounds as if s/he believes s/he is the sole self-appointed ]. It has been two weeks and they have not personally evaluated my citations from peer-reviewed sociological sources. Will these citations ever be evaluated? For outside observors, . My citations were from credible Asian American sociological books I rented from the library, so they were not removing the citations based on a lack of credibiility. Here is the article as User:Ishu and User:HongQiGong would like it to be which comprises their own opinions on issues. They are flagrantly disregarding the ] policy with their discussions on the talk page. Many of their discussions boil down to having this article reflect their ]. -- 00:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*] article seems to have two editors who have difficulty with discussions of the mechanisms of voting and the mechanisms of representation, specifically with the "majority votes/limited votes" issue and the "voter-representative disconnect" issue. Progress on this issue has been virtually impossible on the ] page. Also, noting no response to the issue of poor article organization raised on the same page. This article requires much more attention and discussion for improvement from the larger Politics Wiki community. -- 16:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] There are only really two main editors at this page for a 2008 US presidential candidate, myself and ]. We are having difficulty restructuring the article to seperate bio from senate career, as well as dealing with whether or not Brownback's itslef campaigning should be included on the page. 15:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] - a current event article regarding Iran named initially "Iran international crisis" has been renamed as "Current international dispute with Iran" by some editors, on the ground that naming it ] is biased against Iran. Others argue that the Iran situation follows the definition of an ]: "a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war." 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] - should we give the location of the blog which is referred to in this article. 09:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)~ |
|
|
|
|
|
*]. I've created a new article to address concerns of undue weight in the Fred Baron article of a notable event. I've tried to keep it NPOV, but would appreciate a neutral set of eyes to double-check it for NPOV. 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*] POV and accuracy problems created by editor's retaliatory reversion. 15:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*]. Should the ] be listed once on the first occurrance and an indication made that it is a regularly occurring annual event, or should each individual occurrance be listed? 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] |
|
] |