Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Atomaton (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 11 September 2006 (Item removed, research shows no activity since 6 August 2006, more than a month.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• ]

Template:RFCheader

• Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha#Stop this edit war An extremely messy edit war conducted by three users. As I don't have the slightest idea whose version is correct, I've opened up this RfC. 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Criticism_of_the_clothes_free_movement (Hall of Shame no a Reliable Source, per wp:External_links) I reviewed a web link that had appeared in numerous sexuality links. I removed it based on wp:external links on the grounds that 1) user:nikkicraft added the link, and the web site is an activist opinion site written by user:nikkicraft. Although the topic is important, she advocated her own web site as part of her activism. (Wp:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #3). 2) My review of the web site showed that is was an opinion and POV web site, substantially made up of Ms. Craft's anecdotal experience, and had factually innacurate material and unverified personal research. As I said, the subject matter is important, and she is heartfelt about her opinions, but they are just that. Several other users, because of the serious topic, objected to it's deletion and have reinstated it. On the talk page (above) we agreed to ask for other input, or admin input for resolution. I ask here for that, rather than asking one of my favorite admins, because we desire an objective opinion. 22:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans#NPOV problems is the article Sons of Confederate Veterans written from a neutral point of view? 17:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Advocates_for_Children_in_Therapy#RFC over deleting and abuse of admin status 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Category talk:Chinese universities – over the scope of the category. 20:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Lion: Lion same-sex relations - Should zoological studies discussing frequent homosexual interactions among male and female lion pairs be included in the article? Should the person contributing the material be charged with finding opposing viewpoints? 04:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
• Template talk:Police by country – Should the links to the police articles of Hong Kong and Macao be included in brackets after the one of the People's Republic of China, or in the same way as other countries. 21:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:University of California, Riverside#Request for comment: The page is currently protected was protected for several days, after months of disputes regarding the relevance of some sections to the article's subject, the inclusion of images, and the article's overall NPOV status. Responses should go in the "Request for comment" section of the talk page, covering the following points:

• The 909: Does the section titled "The 909" belong in this article? Some editors say it's important to discuss negative aspects of California's Inland Empire, where UCR is located. Others think the section focuses on inappropriate stereotypes and/or is irrelevant to the article's subject. A larger issue is, how much should a university article discuss its surrounding community?
• Air pollution: How much should the article discuss Riverside's pollution problems, if at all? Does this subject merit its own section? Should the section title describe pollution as "severe", "hazardous" or neither?
• Images: Should the article display images of construction on campus, or do they give an unwarranted negative impression of the school? For a while, Image:ucrcampus.jpg, which has been called the "valley of dirt photo", was displayed. A replacement, Image:Commexp.jpg, has been suggested, but not agreed upon.
• Overall NPOV status: There are many disputes over wording, possible undue weight and alleged original research. We might need feedback on better ways to phrase many parts of this article.

• 05:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Argentine National Gendarmerie - Disagreement about whether an article on an Argentine organisation should give preference to the Spanish terms with English terms added after, or whether preference should go to the English terms, with Spanish terms added after. Also whether a translation is legitimate if it appears in no Spanish-English dictionary, rather than a translation which appears in Spanish-English dictionaries. 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:YouTube#Request_for_Comment:_Section_with_information_on_how_to_download_videos_from_YouTube - A dispute over if there should be information included on the main page about how to download videos from YouTube, or at least reference sites that allow this, or if that constitutes a 'How-To'/copyright/legal violation --16:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Kenny Dalglish#2004 Rooney Court Case - a dispute over the notability of a court case involving Kenny Dalglish. Does it merit inclusion in the lead section or not? Was Dalglish's involvement proven, alleged, or anything in-between? 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:English people. Dispute on whether Bretons, Danes, Dutch and Frisians should be added to the list of related people. 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• Talk:Eliyahu Hakim Who is a criminal, for the purpose of categorization? If someone can only be categorized as a criminal if they have been convicted by a competent court, then does the opposite principle hold, that anyone convicted can be so described? 09:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)