Welcome to fedrix.com on July 9 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WP:RFC/A

For more information, see the main page Wikipedia:Requests for comment.

Contents


[edit] Biographies

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Joe Trohman (Notable enough for his own article? ) — Another user has been trying to turn this into a redirect to Fall Out Boy, but I think an independent article on Trohman is fine. Since no one's actually proposing deletion, we can't take the page to AFD, but hopefully, an RFC will help us reach a consensus. Zagalejo^^^ 03:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Frangela (RfC: Frangela question ) — I asked a question about the relationship between the two women in the comedy duo Frangela on the article talk page with the hope that someone who knew more about them could answer it for me because I have been unable to find the answer myself. Specifically, I asked if someone knew if they were lesbian lovers or not. User:Frazzle deleted my question. I asked why on this editor's talk page and they accused me of vandalism. I tried to explain and justify asking this question on Frazzle's talk page but they just replied with insults. I then asked for a third opinion on this dispute and User:Doc Tropics responded and said it was a legitimate question. Despite this, Frazzle has again deleted my question from the talk page. Because of this, I am requesting comments on this dispute from other editors. Please chime in with your opinion on this dispute. Thank you for your time.-Schnurrbart (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Mike Dunleavy, Sr. (RFC: Should we mention the Dunleavy-Simmons feud? ) — Do others think we should mention the recent feud between Dunleavy and Bill Simmons? The feud has received some media coverage [1], but I don't know if that's enough to justify including it. Zagalejo^^^ 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pauley Perrette (Wedding coverage blog citations ) — User:Neutralhomer is repeatedly reverting edits to reinsert references to a self-published blog which contradict/describe as inadequate the coverage in sources that are generally considered reliable. The statements attributed to the article subject are controversial/contentious, and have no other apparent source. Under WP:BLP, these statements are to be removed, but User:Neutralhomer is edit warring to reinsert them. I cannot see any good faith issue here -- statements sourced from a blog report of the wedding, not found in any of the reliable-source coverage of the event, need to be removed from the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Asmahan (RfC ) — There's a longstanding discussion of Asmahan's nationality. Several options have been discussed: one is to label her "Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin" (this edit); another is to not mention her nationality in the lede at all, and merely state her origins and naturalizing in the paragraphs below (this edit). Which should be used, or is there another option? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Bjorn Sigurdsson (Whether this is a hoax or not ) — I have filed a request for comment, because I need more input about whether this is a hoax or not. When I first looked at this article, it was completely unsourced, and the text in the article seemed overdramatic and rather unlikely. This, in addition to a google and google news search coming up empty, caused me to put a suspected hoax tag on it. After adding it, User:Doggytime, the article creator, responded by adding some refs. However, these are offline references, and I have no way of verifying them. So, what do you guys think/suggest I do? I have notified Doggytime about this RFC so we can clear this up. Fingerz 11:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Adam Lambert (RfC: Are the "Order #" and "Results" columns in the performances section needed or encyclopedic? ) — Two editors have been reverting my removal of the "Order #" and "Results" columns from the Performances section. The "Order #" seems appropriate enough for a fansite of the show but certainly not for an encyclopedia article. It suggests that the order number had something to do with something but Wikipedia is the only one suggesting this so that seems like it's original research as well as being trivial. Many, most?, of the other Idol pages also have these extra columns but that doesn't mean that the David Archuleta, which I overhauled (also removing these columns) and took to GA status, or this article should also be degraded. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a bad reason to include something as a general rule.
    Then we have the "Results" column which scertainly seems completely redundant to - In May 2009, he finished as the runner-up on the eighth season of American Idol. - which is prominently in the lede. Absent any compelling reasons to keep this information I think it must again be removed. I'm sorry to do an RfC on this - I'm not seeing another option here. -- Banjeboi 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Herodotus (RfC) — The validity of the following text is contested. However, it is sourced, and the sources seem to give it as much or as little validity as much of the rest of the information we have about Herodotus, including his own writings, and assert it cannot be dismissed out of hand. Please weigh in. Haiduc (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Labh Singh (Are all these changes vandalism to be reverted? ) — Are all these changes vandalism to be reverted? (updated - sinneed (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Chris Brown (entertainer) (WP:NPOV and criminal conviction ) — There are concerns the coverage of Brown's criminal conviction are not being given proper weight, which gives the article a bias POV. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Woburn, Massachusetts (Form of citation required for "Notable residents" list ) — Suppose the Notable Residents list in the article on Anytown lists "John Smith," with a link to the Wikipedia article on Smith. The Smith article states (with citation) that Smith is/was a resident. Questions: (1) Does the Notable Residents list (back in the Anytown article) need to duplicate the citation supporting Smith's residence in Anytown? Or is the link to the main article on Smith sufficient citation? Also: (2a) Does the answer to (1) depend on whether Smith is still living? (2b) If so, is it appropriate for an editor to blank Anytown's entire Notable Residents list without regard for whether the various persons listed are living? I would appreciate assistance on resolving this. 74.92.43.201 (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Marc Gunn (RfC: seems to violate "original research" policy) — While I know Marc is a real person, this seems to be largely self-promotional and in violation of the original research policy. chupacerveza 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Bobby Fischer (RfC: Does the Kraktoa edit regarding Fishcers library have undue weight concerns? ) — Does the Kraktoa edit seen here, have Impartial tone concerns?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:UNDUE#Impartial_tone states that "Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.".The Bobby Fischer article already mentions his antisemitism repeatedly and there really isn't any need to underline it any further.What we are talking about are only some books which were in the mans library nothing more really.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Syed Ahmed (RfC) — Is it appropriate to include this paragraph? The paragraph explains the subject's brief arrest over a loan given by a third party to the subject's then business partner. No charges were brought against anyone. Some editors consider that explaining the issue in sufficient detail requires violating WP:UNDUE, and that therefore it should simply not be mentioned. Disembrangler (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:E.O. Green School shooting (Is the article in violation of any wikipedia core policies? namely WP:NPOV ) — Generally, disputes have arisen regarding the neutrality of the last paragraph of the introduction, the use of Newsweek as a primary source for the article, and WP:UNDUE weight concerns regarding subject matter. Users are encouraged to respond after reading all information currently in the article to see if it is in fact violating any of the wikipedia policies mentioned. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Andrew Peach (RFC ) — There's an ongoing edit war which beaically boils down to two editors who cannot agree on whether or not to include a particular piece of information. See here and here for typical edits. This has been going on for several weeks and is getting ridiculous. I've tried talking to the two editors concerned, but with little success. I have also removed the sentence concerned a couple of times in the past as I personally feel the information is not necessary, but I wouldn't lose any sleep if it stayed in. I just think it's time to resolve this as it's becoming disruprive. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


Sarah_Palin/RfC: A debate over whether the Joke Controversy regarding David Letterman and Sarah Palin should be included. Arzel (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


David Bret Read more about David Bret - the link below will take you there. http://www.errolflynn.net/Library/l-efsa.htm

David Bret a man without integrity, honor or respect for anything. How can any man make a living of lies and deceit to dishonor dead prominent people who cannot defend themselves? What a filthy imagination, a man who puts his own filth onto paper only describing his own self. A Satan indeed!

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|bio}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.


[edit] Economy and trade

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Jägermeister (31 SS resemblance) — It's not "original research." It's blatantly obvious ([2]). Actually it'd be cool if someone looked up the history of the logo, to see if it changed to be more like the SS thing.:Lots of things/logos bear a resemblance to other logos, but it is not noteworthy to point it out, especially when you are comparing a corporate logo to a Nazi insignia! This can be taken as a suggestion of a link, and certainly could get wiki into trouble if the brewery took issue with the entry. magnius (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Category talk:Industry by sector and country () — Colleagues! Did I name this category correct?--Александр Мотин (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:DreamHost (RfC: Does the "Incidents" section have undue weight concerns? ) — Is undue weight being given to the "Incidents" section of DreamHost? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|econ}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.


[edit] History and geography

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II () — Schould the Nazi atrocities in Warsaw be included in the background section, and if yes, how much weight should they have? In the preceeding discussion, some editors proposed the introduction of the following statement into the background section::"A dramatic case of ethnic cleansing took place in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II where the various German units carried out the racial and cultural annihilation of the city with over 800,000 people murdered and centuries of Polish art, literature and architecture deliberately eradicated under the supervision of German scholars."Other editors think that, absent a solid establishment of their relevancy for the expulsions, the atrocities committed in Warsaw should not be included. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Britannia (Request for comment ) — Two requests for comment on the same sentence:* 1. A compromise was achieved relating to the wording of the introduction. One party asserted that the sources said the Greek term Pretannia was cognate with Pretanic Isles and that the resulting Latin derivation (Britannia) might also, therefore, apply to the whole archipelago. The second party drew a distinction between "derived from" and "equates to". Is the current compromise edit correct?* 2. A third party entered the discussion to assert that the "Britannia" was not derived from "Pretannia" and that Caesar coined the term independently. The first party disagrees. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pacifica Forum (Longrunning Dispute) — I would like some outside feedback on this article. User: Xeugene keeps making edits to the article in a fashion that seems to me to be anti-Semitic; at one point he/she dissed Elie Wiesel in a comment accompanying an edit. Also, this user keeps insisting that David Irving and Mark Weber are not Holocaust deniers because they don't deny the entire Holocaust, just 90% of it (they claim 600,000 deaths as opposed to 6 million).I reverted these edits because denying part of the Holocaust is still considered a form of Holocaust denial, at least according to the legal codes of countries in which it is unlawful to deny or minimize the Holocaust. However User: Xeugene keeps reverting me back. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I'd like an outside opinion. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Template talk:The Holocaust (Trimming the template) — Some time ago I suggested that the list of ghettos should be trimmed up only to major ones; Poeticbent above suggests an even more wider series of cutting down the excess fat from this template - and I agree with his sentiments. Still, since this template talk is highly used and yet is apparently not cared for (as my original suggestion went uncommented upon for months), I think a wider RfC is in order. Comments appreciated, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pontiac Hispanic History Preservation Project (Article name correction ) — I have spoken to my mother and have verified that the correct name is Pontiac Hispanic History Project. I told her to ask Mr. Blevens to publish a correction and have left Sfiller (a member of the committee) instructions on how to submit an e-mail correction. With this in mind what do we do about the article name? Do we wait it out and let OTRS correct it? Do we correct it knowing a justification is on the way? Padillah (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Connecticut (rfc: NRHP historic districts vs. villages ) — In the absence of evidence of substantial overlap, and of consensus decisions for mergers, must NRHP-listed historic districts be merged to articles on neighborhoods, villages, towns that may contain them? doncram (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Template talk:New Castle County, Delaware (RfC: Should the Unincorporated Communities be limited to those with a GSA code? ) — I would like editors to weigh in on these two options:*Version 1 - limited to actual communities with a GSA code*Version 2 - expanded to include every entry in the USGS GNIS with a Census Class Code of U6Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (Proposed modification of Firearm article structure ) —
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]
  • Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Defensive_Alliance:_Peru_and_Bolivia. Argument/dispute concerning the Peru-Bolivia alliance during the War of the Pacific. Majority of users involved in discussion have provided a series of reliable sources that support the claim that the alliance was defensive. One user claims the alliance to be offensive, with no reliable sources; refuses to understand Wikipedia policy. Comment is urgently needed.--//[*]MarshalN20[*]\\ (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nakba. Should the word "Nakba" be used on Wikipedia to describe the exodus of Palestinians from their homes in Palestine, in connection with the creation of the state of Israel? 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|hist}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Language and linguistics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]
  • Talk:The Sea-Wolf Should part of the information from the background section be moved to the introduction? Is the background section lacking references? 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|lang}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Mathematics, natural science and technology

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:List of extrasolar planets (Restructuring discussion ) — Would be good to get feedback on how this article can be improved. I've placed below two sections where discussion of this was started, would be good to get feedback from the wider community here. Icalanise (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Wavelength () — We need comments on a long-running dispute, from persons other than those already involved. A key issue is represented in the figure at the right: is the wavelength of this signal the spatial period (labeled "envelope λ")? Or is it the crest-to-crest spacing (labeled "local λ")? Or is it both? Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Lyme disease (RfC on "Controversy and politics" section of "Lyme disease") — Does the "Controversy and politics" section of Lyme disease adequately follow wp:NPOV in reflecting the nature of the controversy? Simesa (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Origin of AIDS (RfC: how should Wikipedia report a controversial theory on the origin of AIDS?) — A theory that AIDS accidentally emerged through polio vaccinations in the 1950s found extremely strong support from at least one eminent scientist, W D Hamilton, but subsequently the scientific community (in Nature and elsewhere) states the theory has been disproven. An author W D Hamilton explicitly stated was a reliable source says the refutations of the theory are nonsense, and may be due to the scientific community and corporate worlds having a vested interest in convincing the general public the theory is false. I suggest that the section on the theory in the origin of AIDS article is headed "Rejected by the scientific community", and says "The scientific community states that the theory has been shown to be false." Others prefer the section is headed "Refuted", and states "The theory has been shown to be false." BBrihem (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Propofol (RfC: Should Michael Jackson be mentioned? ) — Should the current investigation into the death of Michael Jackson be mentioned at all in this article? ReverendWayne (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User talk:ScienceApologist (RfC: Is List of Cosmologists a "Fringe science article"? ) — Is List of cosmologists a "fringe science article"? Members of the arbitration committee are having a hard time deciding. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Category talk:Discrete distributions (RFC) — Community feedback is requested regarding the pros (informative and encyclopedic value) and cons (potential for platform/browser specific behavior) of external links listed at the bottom of Wikipedia probability distribution articles. Such external links typically point to Java applets, which provide interactive graphical and computational interfaces for exploring the concrete probability distribution of interest, but may introduce browser specific appearances. Iwaterpolo (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:SIG SG 550 (Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity ) — Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Heckler & Koch MP5 (Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity ) — Is this article accessible to the average reader? Would this article benefit from structural or organizational changes? Some guy (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:White people (RfC: images) — Shall this article include images, and if so, under what conditions? Erik9 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Wavelength (RfC: Should the classic analysis of waveforms and wavelength be included in article Wavefunction? ) — The sub-section below is proposed to replace the present subsection of the same name in Wavelength. Comments are solicited on the advisability of its inclusion and any emendations that would improve it. Brews ohare (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:SETI (RFC on whether the article should state SETI is "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community" ) — I'm supposed to place a neutral summary here, but since I don't understand Eye.earth's point, I'll do the best I can. The argument, so far as I understand it, is that the above phrase "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community" is POV, and should be "variously viewed" or "variously endorsed". This is because Eye.earth claims that the lack of public funding of SETI means that somehow its status as a hard science has diminished. I claim that its perception as a hard science has not diminished, and am justified by the two citations so far in the article (one of which was added by Eye.earth). See the section immediately above for the discussion. --C S (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Comparison of BitTorrent clients (RFC: Should the list contain clients that don't have articles? ) — Should the list contain BitTorrent clients that don't have articles? Discussion can be read at Talk:List_of_BitTorrent_clients#Notice_to_editors.--Otterathome (talk) 11:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:IPhone/Archive 15 (Request for Comment ) — (trying to maintain neutrality here) The issue is that I (Dario D.) think this article (and IPod Touch, in an almost identical situation) have criticisms that warrant a Crit section (actually I'm only focusing on the IPod Touch article at the moment, because I haven't finished the IPhone Crit section yet (I posted this IPod Touch crits section (this is an edit, not the actual page)), but a few other editors think the Crits section (for both pages) should be dissolved into snippets scattered across the article, because having a Crit section would draw undue weight, and imply that we want readers to see flaws. I argued that any article about products more than warrants a Crits section if there are the sources to back it (and if they themselves say the issues are weighty), but they argued (not sure if they still do - they never mopped up on many of their refuted points) that Wikipedia policy is against having Crit sections, and posted a self-edited FAQ at the top of both the IPod Touch and IPhone discussion pages (see top of this page) that says: "Why isn't there a criticism/controversy section in this article? While reliable sourced criticisms and controversies can be included in this article, criticism sections themselves are generally discouraged." This was later proven to be a false statement, but the war rages on. See the discussion on this page for more details (Call For Criticisms section, and Third Opinion section below it). --[ Dario D. ] 02:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


(i) There is consensus that wavelength can be defined for general periodic traveling waveforms. However, the caption provided in the reverted version is under dispute, as is the reference cited to a figure that shows a similar waveform.

(ii) Objection is raised to use of the standard mathematical expression for a traveling wave, f(x - vt) despite references to sources that use this form, and despite links to other Wiki articles employing this form.

(iii) Objection is raised to presenting the standard Fourier expansion of such a general waveform, with Wiki links to appropriate articles and full citation of sources, with the intent of showing that a general waveform necessarily involves shorter wavelength components, and therefore places restrictions upon the dispersion of an allowed medium.

(iv) The proposal is made that only allusion to a simple example of surface water-waves should be provided, and all discussions bearing upon linear media be omitted, despite the fact that wavelength is a property of all waves regardless of their physical origin.

Please suggest whether you think this material is relevant to the article wavelength. Brews ohare (talk) 05:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|sci}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Art, architecture, literature, media, culture, games

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (Request for Comment ) — Is the television show about the intervention of Gordon Ramsay, about the restaurants, or both? Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rap rock (RFC: Merger ) — Should any of the articles: Rap rock, Rap metal, Rapcore be merged into a general article? --neon white talk 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:News Corporation (RfC: request-for-comments on disputed editing ) — disputed editing: "... News Corporation... also called Murdoch group in neolatin languages .... ". In my opinion the object is serious: "internationality rule of Wikipedia" here at risk. Caceo (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Kittie (RfC: What should be done?) — The major "sources" for this article are YouTube. I patched some major problems and added some minor fixes, but I can't get a sense of what, if anything, should be saved.Novangelis (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of characters on Scrubs (RfC: Should these characters be merged to a larger article) — Should the Scrubs characters be merged to a larger article, like a list of characters article, until they can establish notability?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:WBAL-TV (RfC: "Where Are They Now?" ) — Is the current career information in the "Former personalities" section (AKA "Where Are They Now?") off-topic for the article? Vicenarian (T · C) 00:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|media}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.


[edit] Politics

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory () — ===Is Kim Il Sung a Marxist who (notably) theorized?===see discussion above. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:2009 Honduran coup d'état (RFC ) — I'm creating an RFC partially just to draw attention to this article in general (it's a magnet for POV from both sides - I've seen a number of article edits which really stretch WP:AGF), but the specific issue is what the article name should be. Some claim that it should be called "2009 Honduran coup d'état" because "coup" is the word used by the overwhelming majority of WP:RS worldwide for the events of June 28th. Others claim that it should be at "2009 Honduran constitutional crisis" because (variously) the article covers more than just the coup, or because "coup" constitutes a legal accusation that violates WP:BLP, or because a number of Honduran RS (and Honduran editors) do not consider it a coup. Also, one user (me) has proposed a compromise, by which the "call it 'coup'" group would allow the name "constitutional crisis" as long as "Coup d'état" were one first-level section header inside the article. Obviously, both sides of the question would in any case be given their WP:DUE weight in the article. Homunq (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Template talk:Politics of Honduras (RFC: Who is president? ) — There is obviously an edit war over who is president right now. Zelaya was legally elected and claims that he was illegally exiled and is still president. Micheletti and his supporters claim that Zelaya had violated article 239 of the constitution and thus was no longer president, and so Micheletti is the legal successor. I think that this template should not take sides; there should be some way to indicate the dispute. President Zelaya*...President Micheletti*The government of Honduras is controlled by Micheletti who has been sworn president in congress. If Mel is reinstated as president, Micheletti was president from June 25-[X date]. Although by law Mel can't be president again because it counts as re-election which is illegal by the article #4 and if he does, he loses his status as citizen according to article #42 number 4. Chupu (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pacifica Forum (Longrunning Dispute) — I would like some outside feedback on this article. User: Xeugene keeps making edits to the article in a fashion that seems to me to be anti-Semitic; at one point he/she dissed Elie Wiesel in a comment accompanying an edit. Also, this user keeps insisting that David Irving and Mark Weber are not Holocaust deniers because they don't deny the entire Holocaust, just 90% of it (they claim 600,000 deaths as opposed to 6 million).I reverted these edits because denying part of the Holocaust is still considered a form of Holocaust denial, at least according to the legal codes of countries in which it is unlawful to deny or minimize the Holocaust. However User: Xeugene keeps reverting me back. I don't want this to turn into an edit war, so I'd like an outside opinion. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Animal Liberation Front (FBI quote ) — Should a source providing the FBI's position on the ALF be added to the lead? Should the current Dept of Homeland Security and SPLC opinions remain? Please read this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:A New Beginning (RfC: Opinion of Non-Governmental Agencies on Speech, primary source issues, and disputed reporting) — Does it violate the rules of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT to have the opinion of people who are not in any kind of government position in the article? At issue are CNN pundit David Gergen,[3] Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies,[4] Charles Krauthammer,[5] Christopher Hitchens, [6] Martin Peretz,[7] Rami Khouri of The Daily Star, and Al Jazeera bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara. Those two other unlinked people are cited to this.There are also three seperate issues. (1) Whether or not Christiane Amanpour of CNN's statement describing the Muslim world's general reaction as very favorable and supportive is includable. (2) Whether or not her reporting that the fact that Obama never mentioned the word "terrorism" or "terror" was positively interpreted by many in the Muslim street, given that many of them see a 'war on terror' interchangeably as a 'war on Islam', is includable. (3) Whether or not Anderson Cooper's statement that American conservatives also picked up on this and argued that it weakened Obama's overall message is includable. These issues are that of reporters giving their impression of the facts, not their opinions, and their inclusion depends on their reliability and the weighting issue. The source is here.P.S. This article is under discretionary sanctions. Any personal attacks and/or incivility will be reported to them immediately. The Squicks (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rachel Corrie (RFC: Is the See Also section NPOV and appropriate to the article? ) — I removed the See Also section from this article, as it was only a list of other ISM activists killed by the IDF during the Second Intifada. It has since been replaced and removed several more times, so clearly not only is the supposed "long-standing" consensus to keep it not valid, but a new consensus needs to be reached. Therefore, I propose the following statement and RFC to reach a new consensus:Various claims were made for the relevance of the section citing "patterns of behavior" by the IDF, or relevancy of the timeframe, but I feel it violates NPOV because it purports to show "a pattern of behavior by the IDF" that is not supported by any reliable sources. I would point out, though, that where the section is now is a little better than where it was: previously the names said "killed by the IDF" with no clarifier as to why they were listed (they were in warzones with the ISM), and now there is at least a rationale. However, I don't believe the rationale is correct: a victim list is appropriate for this type of article (as mnetioned in the earlier discussion directly above). So, I think there are two issues to be resolved here. One, is the section NPOV, and if it is, is it still appropriate for the article? MSJapan (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Right-wing politics () — The term right-wing originated in 18th century Europe where more conservative members sat to the right of the president in parliamentary chambers It is still used especially in France and Italy where the more conservative parties have an historic connection with right-wing parties of the past, and continue to sit on the right. In the twentieth century a number of social and political scientists constructed models that applied the term to the politics of English-speaking countries. Since then American conservatism has been called right-wing, although the term is generally considered derogatory in other English-speaking countries.Should the article treat the Right as a single topic with unifying features or should it state that it is used in different ways? Is there one definition for the Right or are there several? The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Gun violence (RfC: Should the firearm homicide table in Gun Violence include columns of non-gun-related homicides? ) — Is the inclusion of general homicide data, implemented with other than guns, warranted in the table of gun-related homicides by country for an article on gun violence? Yaf (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Mark Levin (RFC: Men In Black) — There is a dispute over whether to include a summary of one chapter from one of Mark Levin's books in the article, in addition to the paragraph already at Mark Levin#Men In Black: How The Supreme Court is Destroying America. The summary is sourced from the chapter itself.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|pol}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Religion and philosophy

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

WikiProject Philosophy
Main project page (watch) (discussion | +) (join)
Article alerts (watch)
Cleanup listings
Pages needing attention (stubs) (category)
Requests for comments {{rfctag|reli}}(watch)
Humanities reference desk
Articles proposed for deletion
Requested articles
New articles (rules) (log) (watch)
Requests for peer review
Article assessment (talk)
Master worklist
Tables of statistics
Log of changes (watch)
edit · changes


  • Talk:List of contributors to Marxist theory () — ===Is Kim Il Sung a Marxist who (notably) theorized?===see discussion above. Ibarrutidarruti (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Pope Pius XII (Request for comment--"retraction" ) — Years after the publication of Hitler's Pope (a best-selling book, critical of Pius XII, that more or less launched the debate over Pius XII and the Holocaust, extensively quoted--positively and negatively--by most following works) , Cornwell stated "I would now argue, in the light of the debates and evidence following Hitler's Pope, that Pius XII had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany". This quote is included in the section about the book. User:Mamalujo has attempted to, on the basis of this quote, remove entirely any summary of the original argument of Hitler's Pope (e.g. here). Failing that, Mamalujo wishes to add a sentence or clause claiming that the book has been "retracted" (e.g. here). This has already been discussed repeatedly in the article about Hitler's Pope, most recently here. At issue is whether Cornwell's statement constitutes a "retraction" and if that a complete retraction of the entire work or just a modification of part of his original thesis, and if so, whether that means the original argument should not even be mentioned, or be claimed to have been retracted (in addition to including the above quote). Savidan 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Episcopal Church (United States) (RfC) — Editors disagree about the legitimacy of calling bishops Spong, Pike and Forrester heterodox.[8] Furthermore, one editor disqualifies Christianity Today as an "extremist" magazine, "'well respected' surely only by those who already agree with its opinions." Other editors think it's a respectable publication.:RfC Comment: There are official bodies of the Episcopal church that decide what and who constitutes orthodoxy, are there not? If such an organization has called these Bishops heterodox, or attempted to remove them or declare them as being outside the scope of orthodoxy, then it is right to identify them as such. Examining their their views and comparing them with the views recorded in the official documents of the church and deciding on that basis that they are heterodox is original research, and outside the scope of what a Wikipedia article should do. In any case, whether they are called orthodox or heterodox, who is doing the calling should be clearly identified rather than just applying the blanket label 'orthodox bishop' or 'heterodox bishop'; statements from a particular author or faction should not be taken as representative of an entire community, unless some organ of that community has affirmed the decision, or the author was acting on behalf of the community. --Clay Collier (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]
  • Talk:Aloisius Joseph Muench (RfC) - An editor has raised a variety of concerns, including " Almost the entire article is taken from a single source and written by a single editor. We need to know whether the source was fair and unbiased and whether the WP editor's selections from that source fairly represent the material or are slanted". Savidan 23:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|reli}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Society, sports, law and sex

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • Talk:Death hoax (RFC - what is Wikipedia policy on "death hoaxes" ) — *Should this page even exist? *Does engaging in the reporting of celebrity death hoaxes actually encourage such hoaxes? *Where should Wikipedia draw the line between reporting of a phenomenon (which indisputably exists) and avoiding being part of the problem? Manning (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Animal Liberation Front (FBI quote ) — Should a source providing the FBI's position on the ALF be added to the lead? Should the current Dept of Homeland Security and SPLC opinions remain? Please read this talk section. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:White people (RfC: images) — Shall this article include images, and if so, under what conditions? Erik9 (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Unexplained disappearances (Recent edits: RfA ) — This page has been altered substantially with only the sketchiest explanation of why (see above).
    Can anyone advise whether the change is worth keeping or whether it should be reverted to the status quo ante (say 31 May 2009)? Swanny18 (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:E.O. Green School shooting (Is the article in violation of any wikipedia core policies? namely WP:NPOV ) — Generally, disputes have arisen regarding the neutrality of the last paragraph of the introduction, the use of Newsweek as a primary source for the article, and WP:UNDUE weight concerns regarding subject matter. Users are encouraged to respond after reading all information currently in the article to see if it is in fact violating any of the wikipedia policies mentioned. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 06:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|soc}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Style issues

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • User:Full-date unlinking bot (Proposed exceptions) — Per Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, "An exclusion list will contain the articles the bot will not edit. This list will contain the few article titles where a link to month-day and/or year within at least one triple date meets the relevance requirement in MOSNUM. (In these cases, it would be easier to edit the page manually in accordance with this at a later time.) Articles will be added to the list after manual review; there should be no indiscriminate mass additions of articles to the exclusion list. The list will be openly editable for one month before the bot starts running." This is your opportunity to get pages — whether specific articles or groups of articles — exempt from being edited by the bot. Be sure to state a reason with each addition, or it will be removed without warning. This list will follow the bold, revert, discuss model with adjustments; contested additions to the list will be relocated to a section of contested exceptions where they will be discussed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Tip (What should happen with this article? ) — This article contains an enormous list of descriptions of how tipping occurs in each country. Almost all of these are unsourced. Those that are sourced are to non–reliable sources such as DHL, a postal company that has no editorial process and no real expertise in the area of tipping customs. The article has been tagged with "needs sources" since August 2007. During that time someone split the page off to Tipping by region, a page with the same problems, but the section has remained intact. A lot of arguments have ensued, but this page hasn't seen any progress.My questions here are:* Should all the unsourced material be removed?* Should material sourced to unreliable sources like DHL (and other travel websites) be removed?* Should "tipping by region" even be included, since there appears to be a dearth of accurate, peer-reviewed information on this subject?Noisalt (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision (RfC on reliable sources for Eurovision articles ) — What sources are considered reliable and can be used in Eurovision articles? Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Joseph Priestley (RfC on lead image alignment ) — "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Template talk:Italic title (RFC: Should this be used? ) — None of the discussions linked above seem to show a strong consensus for using this template one way or the other, because they weren't really advertised enough. So, what is the community's view on this template? I'm going to put this on WP:CENT, and I'll spam the talk pages of WP:TOL, WP:VG, WP:BOOKS, and WP:FILMS, since this would most affect the articles in those projects. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 123 (RfC: Acceptable number format? ) — This request for comment is for several related questions. This RfC is about the appearance of the numbers, and whether they can be successfully cut-and-pasted into other applications. The templates used to format them is not the topic of this discussion; template coding can follow whatever conclusions the RfC comes to.# Is 4,046.8564224 an acceptable number format? (Notice the comma to the left of the decimal point and the gap to the right used to group digits into groups of three digits.)# Is 4046.8564224 an acceptable number format? (Notice that gaps are used on both sides of the decimal point to group digits.# If gaps are acceptable both to the right and left of the decimal point, and an article needs gaps to the right in some numbers in the article, should all the numbers in the article, including numbers with three or fewer digits right of the decimal, be formatted with gaps?The Manual of Style (dates and numbers) (MOSNUM) for quite a while advocated comma separators to the left of the decimal, and either no separators, or gap separators, to the right of the decimal. However, none of the examples in the MOSNUM or in the documentation for the {{Val}} illustrated that this could occur in the same number, thus creating a style clash within the same number. About a week ago this was changed to allow 4046.8564224 or 4,046.8564224 but not 4,046.856 422 4. Today the change was reverted and the reverting editor suggested wider input be sought.(In case you are curious where the number 4046.8564224 came from, it is the exact number of square meters in an international acre.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|style}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.

[edit] Policies, guidelines and proposals

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

  • User:Full-date unlinking bot (Proposed exceptions) — Per Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, "An exclusion list will contain the articles the bot will not edit. This list will contain the few article titles where a link to month-day and/or year within at least one triple date meets the relevance requirement in MOSNUM. (In these cases, it would be easier to edit the page manually in accordance with this at a later time.) Articles will be added to the list after manual review; there should be no indiscriminate mass additions of articles to the exclusion list. The list will be openly editable for one month before the bot starts running." This is your opportunity to get pages — whether specific articles or groups of articles — exempt from being edited by the bot. Be sure to state a reason with each addition, or it will be removed without warning. This list will follow the bold, revert, discuss model with adjustments; contested additions to the list will be relocated to a section of contested exceptions where they will be discussed. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:George W. Bush (RfC: What are reliable sources when it comes to waterboarding? ) — The operative dispute between the various parties centers on whether waterboarding is torture, fact or opinion? There are two primary viewpoints here:*Viewpoint A: Waterboarding is, in fact, torture: This group of adherents believes that waterboarding is commonly viewed and defined as torture, an assertion that this group believes is supported by all reliable sources on the subject. This viewpoint asserts that individuals who claim that waterboarding is not torture are not reliable sources because they are either not third parties (i.e., have some conflict of interest; Dick Cheney was an example given) or are not authoritative on the subject (Tom Tancredo was cited as an example) or that various authors that reported the views of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales in the news media are not knowledgeable enough to accurately report the views of these individuals. This group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, a form of torture..." used in the article.*Viewpoint B: Waterboarding may be torture, but it is not an established fact that it is torture: This group of adherents recognizes that there are a majority of those who believe that waterboarding is torture, but that not all experts on the matter believe it is torture, as reported in various reliable sources. This group also believes that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales are experts on this subject and have valid viewpoints represented in reliable sources. Hence, this group seeks to have the words "...waterboarding, widely-considered a form of torture..." used in the article.There is also disagreement as to what constitutes a reliable source. Is it the news media that reported the viewpoint (e.g., CNN), the holder of the viewpoint (e.g., Dick Cheney), or a combination thereof?The issue has been discussed at length above, with little give on either side. While it has generally remained civil, there are signs that it will digress into personal attacks, and charges of wikilawyering and bias. I welcome others who have been involved in the discussion to correct anything that I may have unintentionally misstated. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction) (RFC: Non-trivial or signifcant) — The term "non-trival" has replaced "significant" in regard to the level of coverage that is required to establish the notability of fictional topics. The term "significant" implies a much higher level than non-trivial by its very meaning, and may imply a higher standard than is required. Comment is requested on whether "non-trivial" or "signifcant" should be used to describe the type of coverage that address the subject directly in detail and no original research is needed to extract the content. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Rorschach test (RFC: Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? ) — Should the potential for harm to result inform our editorial decisions regarding encyclopedic content? –xenotalk 02:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Press-up (RFC) — Press-up → Push-up — It's been 2 years since the last straw poll was taken regarding the move of this article, consensus can change. 168.7.247.217 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • User talk:ScienceApologist/Approved articles (Cautious territory section) — Should a "cautious territory" section be included along with a list of articles that User:ScienceApologist is either permitted to edit or refused permission to edit?I believe that the "cautious territory section" is extremely problematic. There is no indication from any of the rulings made against my account that there are gray-areas such as the ones the cautious territory section is implying. Also, I think the labeling of "List of cosmologists" as "Cautious territory" but not other articles is arbitrary and capricious. I would prefer that this section not exist and that arbitrators decide either that an article is appropriate for me to edit or is not appropriate for me to edit per the sanctions imposed upon this account, specifically: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#ScienceApologist_topic_banned. I would like to get wider community input on this before I make a formal request to arbcom on this matter.It is one thing to be subject to restrictions that arbcom has agreed to. It is quite another to be subject to restrictions that seem to be developing "on the fly" as it were. I have, in principle, no issue with any user requesting an amendment to the rulings against me for inclusion of a "Cautious territory" idealization of areas appropriate for me to edit, but I'm a little upset with the unilateral imposition of a new category of editing. Since there has been no specific wording as to what the consequences are for any supposed "breach" of this new sanction, I'm simply asking that either we formally impose this sanction upon my account or we decide a demarcation for List of cosmologists one way or another.Thanks.ScienceApologist (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User page indexing () — A request for comment on the indexing of userspace. Gigs (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia (RFC: Role of Jimmy Wales in the English Wikipedia ) — There are five co-proposers[1] of this RFC. Please indicate your support of or opposition to the proposal, along with your comments. If referring to specific parts of the proposal, please use the numbers (1a, 1b, 2, etc). The RFC will be open for two weeks, until Monday 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC). The RFC started: 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:List of Video on Trial episodes (RfC: Is the List of Verdicts trivia? ) — Okay, someone keeps reverting my removal of a huge fancrufty part of this article as vandalism since he disputes its definition as trivia, and yet even also has a disclamier in an article (which I thought we were supposed to avoid). Anyway, if anything, what is part of the humorous part of the show, I think is just trivial and does not need to be included. I also have some other doubts about its inclusion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (RFC: Replacement Wording for PLOT) — This RFC seeks to determine whether a modified version of WP:NOT#PLOT, rewritten to address concerns raised in a previous poll/RFC, has consensus to remain as policy or should be moved elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Grief porn (RfC: How do we decide the above? ) — ===conflicting facts===1. When presented with two opposing citations (one claiming the coining of a term and a number of others being shown to exist before the coining), what is the proper method of resolving those differences?:Here is the edit with statement of "fact" (Claim that the term "Grief Porn" was coined on April 7, 2005) that is being questioned: [9] :Here is the supporting references as evidence showing prior use of term "Grief Porn" in literature and printed press: [10][11][12][13] exist from many years prior.99.144.192.208 (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Giano/The future () — The object of this page is to assess if there is sufficient feeling amongst editors, one way or another, to have a proper, honest and frank discussion as to Wikipedia's future management and administration. I don't suggest that debate is held here in my user space, but that we just see if there is sufficient support for such a debate. If you want to make a statement for others to comment upon, please do so below. Please try to limit statements to 500(ish) words. Hopefully, there will later be plenty of space elsewhere to fully express views and ideas.To keep this page at a reasonable length and easy to read, could people please limit their countering of other's points (in the agreeing or disagreeing columns). It's fine to do it, but please keep it to a sensible minimum and try to remember some people are more easily intimdated than others. If you really want to query a point, then please consider starting a section on the talk page and linking to it from the relevant spot here. Anything reasonable and worthwhile will hopefully be seriously debated elsewhere. This page is just to assess views not try and change them - that comes later. Thanks. Giano (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia talk:External links (Why we link official websites - proposal ) — #What should be linked currently reads: Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. • "We get a lot of questions about official websites (usually about multiple websites and MySpace links). In the interest of better explaining the issues, I'd like to propose a new section that unifies all of the "official website" stuff." —Quotation from User:WhatamIdoing, 19:47, 22 June 2009; RfC posted by Milo 08:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User talk:Gekkoma (Machine Translation) — Why don't we harness tools such as Google's language translation in the form of wikipedia bots to carry out bulk machine translations of articles? The imperfect articles can then be quickly 'polished' off by a human. Firstly, this is much faster and cheaper than individually translating tens of thousands of articles. Secondly, it rapidly allows for knowledge to be converted and transferred into other languages. Any feedback?:Cheaper? Whats cheaper than free? Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:Joseph Priestley (RfC on lead image alignment ) — "Should MOS:IMAGE be interpreted to allow the lead image to be left-aligned to ensure the face and/or eyes are directed at the text?" Madcoverboy (talk) 02:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Jarry1250/RFC () — This request for comment has been created in order to assess the community's position with regard to automated edits to heading hierarchies. (For some reason, RFC Bot needs this: - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Talk:T-1000/Archive2 (1994 or 1995: a discussion of OR ) — A user added twice the year '1995' to the article, extrapolating the date when the Terminator arrived in T2. The excuse for this was provided in the second edit summary: "The police computer in T2 says John was born on 2-28-1985 and is now aged 10. You do the math." Aside from the somewhat unfriendly tone of that, I reverted the synthesis by noting that our personal observations and calculations aren't citable, and therefore not includable.
    The editor has added it yet again, theorizing that a simple calculation isn't original research, but common sense. I've reverted it again, on the strength of the argument I initially made - its synthesis. We need a citation stating it explicitly. Without one, we are stuck with the date of 1994. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Manually-added entries:
[add a discussion]


To add a discussion to RFC:

  • Add the tag {{rfctag|policy}}. See Template:Wider attention for a list of abbreviations.
  • To add one discussion into two different categories, use {{rfctag|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
  • To add an entry manually, click the "add a discussion" link. On the top of the list, note the name of the page and a short summary of the discussion.
  • For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
  • Report problems to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment.


[edit] User conduct

Shortcuts:
WP:RFCC
WP:RFC/USER
WP:RFC/ADMIN
WP:RFC/BOT
WP:RFC/U redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Request for checkuser (WP:RFCU) or for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names (WP:RFC/NAME)

This process page is undergoing reform discussion on its talk page here.

This process is for discussing specific users who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comments on a user's actions, follow the instructions to create a subpage in the section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in Article content disputes.

For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, a quick, simple way to get an outside view.

For feedback on your own activity at Wikipedia, you might try Wikipedia:Editor review.

To report an offensive or confusing user name in violation of Wikipedia username policy, see subpage User names.

Before using this page, you should have read the general instructions on RfCs for users. You might also want to read some suggestions on how to present an RfC case.

[edit] Uncertified user RfCs

Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed.

Minimum requirements

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. Uncertified user RfCs or deleted user RfCs will be removed from this page. This information is also available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users.

[edit] Instructions

All participants in a user conduct RfC are expected to comply with the rules and guidelines stated below. Instructions to create a new User Conduct RfC are found in the "General User Conduct" section that follows. Once an RfC is created, it should be listed in the "Candidates pages" section, until two different users have certified the RfC. After certification, the RfC should be moved from the "Candidate pages" section to the "Approved pages" section.

[edit] Rules

Different RfCs have been run in different ways, but there are a few hard and fast rules:

  • Personal attacks are not permitted at RfC.
  • RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process.
  • An RfC on user conduct must have the following in its structure:
    • A statement of the dispute, including an evidence section with diffs, and evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute.
    • The subject's response.
    • Individual views from other editors.
    • A list of which editors endorse each of the above sections.

[edit] Guidelines

Once a User Conduct RfC has been opened and certified, other editors can take a look and offer comments, either by posting their own view, or endorsing someone else's view.

The following represents the guidelines formed by general practice. These are not policies or "rules", but advice on how most RfCs are run:

  • Anyone, including those who wrote the original RfC, is allowed to post their own view, in a separate section with their name on it, such as ==View by <name>== It can be helpful to indicate the viewpoint of the particular editor, such as "Outside view" "Inside view" "Semi-involved view" etc.
  • In most cases those who brought the RfC do not post individualized views, since the initial statement already indicates their thoughts, but in some cases they may wish to post an additional individualized view to clarify their opinion. Either method is acceptable.
  • Other users can endorse a view, by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section.
  • All signed comments and talk that are neither a view nor an endorsement should be directed to the discussion page.
  • Any other types of discussion should be directed to the talkpage.
  • Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.
  • You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement, and/or the subject's response.
  • Only endorse views with which you agree. Do not post "disagreement" endorsements. The lack of a signature is sufficient indication that there may be some disagreement with the statement.

For more information on how previous RfCs have been run, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive.

[edit] Closing and archiving

Disputes may be removed from this page and archived under any of the following circumstances:

  1. If no additional complaints are registered for an extended period of time, and the dispute appears to have stopped.
  2. The parties to the dispute agree.
  3. The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration.

Remove the link from the list here and add it to the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Archive. If the dispute is handled in mediation or arbitration, please make a note of where the dispute resolution process continued.

[edit] General user conduct

Discussions about user conduct should be listed in this section unless the complaint is specifically about the use of admin privileges or the choice of username. To list a user conduct dispute, please create a subpage using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user as a template, and then list it as follows:

Example user
{one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RfCs are signed with the date only, not your username)

Use this form to generate a new page:


An alternate template example is available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user2. This new template has been redesigned from the original to try and focus more on discussion than conflict. If you would like to use this template, create a subpage and list it the same as a normal RfC:

Example user2
{one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~ (note: that is five tildes, not four, RfCs are signed with the date only, not your username)

Or use this form to generate a page:


Note: In certain rare situations, the above methods may not work if there has already been a User Conduct RfC on that particular user, since clicking on the button will simply take you to the old page. If this happens, you will need to manually create the next page in the series. For example, if you wanted to create the third RfC on John Doe, you would create a page at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Doe 3]], and then list the new page in the "Candidate" section below. If you have any questions on this, you can ask at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct.

[edit] Candidate pages (users)

Frei Hans
User makes flippant accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry and refuses to observe consensus. 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Approved pages (users)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

Mgillfr
User refuses to observe what has been determined by consensus. 05:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Docu
User refuses to use a signature with a link and timestamp despite multiple requests to modify this behavior. 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Uruk2008
Poor references and disruptive edits, no response to multiple warnings and bans. 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Born2cycle
Long-term wikilawyering. 06:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Stilltim
User is creating numerous (hundreds) disruptive content forks. 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Use of administrator privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the use of sysop rights by Wikipedia:Administrators. This includes the actions of protecting or unprotecting pages, deleting or undeleting pages, blocking or unblocking users, and enforcing Arbitration Committee decisions. If the dispute is over an admin's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example admin
Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

[edit] Candidate pages (admins)

[edit] Approved pages (admins)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

Friday
Continually making the atmosphere uncomfortable and unpleasant for editors, and abuse of admin tools.

[edit] Use of bot privileges

This section is only for discussions specifically related to the operation of a bot. This includes the actions of unauthorized bots, bots without flags, and inter-wiki bots. It does not include the use of scripts or semi-automated tools on a user's account. If the dispute is over a bot owner's actions as an editor, it should be listed under the General user conduct section above. To list a dispute, create a subpage using the following sample as a template:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example bot
Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

As with disputes over general user conduct, at least two people must certify that they believe there is a legitimate basis for the complaint. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be deleted.

[edit] Candidate pages (bots)

[edit] Approved pages (bots)

These RfCs have met the two-person threshold. List newer entries on top.

[edit] See also

[edit] User names

Shortcuts:
WP:RFC/NAME
WP:RFCN

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be inappropriate under Wikipedia's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

  • For blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, post to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
  • For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
  • If the username is NOT blatantly inappropriate, and the user has made no recent edits, do not post as there is no need to take any action.
  • If you wish to contest or question the blocking of a user by an administrator, please do not post the issue here. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator or with other administrators.
  • Make sure that the user in question has not already been blocked prior to bringing their username here.
  • The user in question should first be notified and allowed time to discuss on their talk page about the concern regarding their username before adding the report here. Do not post the issue here unless they have refused to change their username or have continued to edit without reply.

If, after discussion (you may wish to use {{subst:uw-username|reason}} for this purpose), you still believe the user has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may list it here and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates.

List requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|reason ~~~~}}, and notify the user on their talk page so they may participate in the discussion (you may choose to use {{subst:und}} for this purpose).

Instructions for closing administrators

This page has Archives:

  1. To May 1, 2007
  2. May 1, 2007 to present

Tools: Special:Listusers, Special:Ipblocklist

[edit] Reports

Please remember that this is not a vote, rather, it is a place where editors can come when they are unsure what to do with a username, and to get outside opinions (hence it's named "requests for comment"). Bolded recommendations are not necessary. There are no set time limits to the period of discussion.

Place your report below this line.

[edit] Catholicschoolsruinedmylife

Catholicschoolsruinedmylife (talk · contribs)

The username promotes a point of view and could be offensive to some users. The user was warned [15] but continued to edit, including a userpage explanation [16] for the name. I still contend that the username should be disallowed as Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which is all this username seems to be about. Vicenarian (T · C) 22:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
This is less a username issue and more a vandalism only account. I would be tempted to just report to AIV regardless of any further edits. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Wisdom89. The vandalism is an issue, but I don't think the username is. I don't see it being offensive or disruptive. However, if the user vandalizes further, a block would be in order (she has been given a final warning on her userpage). -kotra (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree the vandalism is most troubling, but the username itself seems like it would be disruptive; it clearly pushes a point-of-view (marking this as possibly a single-purpose account) and is contrary to the spirit of WP:NPOV. It gives the impression of partiality, which is one of the primary concerns behind prohibiting promotional usernames. As pointed out, further vandalism would result in an indefinite block. However, if the user reforms and starts contributing constructively, I would still have an issue with the username. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree with above, Appears to be a vandal only account created to target Catholic School articles as I dont see any other constructive edits. Harlem675 07:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Furby smokes crack316

Furby smokes crack316 (talk · contribs)

The username seems to promote illicit drug use. User's response to a notice on his talk page was: "Why do you care about my username?????????/" -- Sift&Winnow 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems to me like their question was an attempt to clarify the issue, since there was no reason provided in the username warning. Suggest closing this until one-on-one discussion with the user is actually attempted and found unsuccessful. -kotra (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The user has been invited, for a second time, to comment on his username. There has been no response as of yet, and he continues to accumulate warnings on his talk page (3 within 2 days). --Sift&Winnow 15:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Has anybody noticed that it's a vandalism-only account anyway? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if [17] is vandalism, but the other stuff certainly is. -kotra (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
There was no actual reason given why it's a problem until this RfC, and the user has not edited in the meantime... I think it's blatant enough to be blocked without proper discussion though, WP:UAA-style. -kotra (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, it is unknown (although unlikely) that "furby" is the user's name - in that case, I'd err on the side of caution and block this as potentially an attack on another user or real person. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably this. -kotra (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, given the comical nature of the name, that looks about right. Ok, so attacking is out - that would have sealed the deal for me. In that case, I remain neutral on the username issue, but if we're talking about a vandalism only account, someone should just send them to AIV on there next unproductive edit. Wisdom89 (T / C) 09:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Certainly all edits except (possibly) one, are vandalisms. I have no problem with username, but will post a vandalism warning on his talk page. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
No I won't, Orangemike has already done so. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disallow. Disruptive. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disallow: If there were a user named Kirby Smokes Pot and a person in real life named Kirby were to see it, even if it may refer to the video game character, since Kirby Smokes Pot would add pictures of the character consuming cannibis and commenting on that, then it would be both offensive to anyone named Kirby, as well as disruptive (in fact, like the Furby toy, Kirby video games and anime are meant to be for children). Thus, there may be those named Furby who may be offended at the name. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow the username is perfectly acceptable and fine. JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: no action taken - User must be given a reasonable chance to discuss on their talk page before being listed here, as per instructions above. 5 minutes is not enough time. kotra (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Allah does not exist

Allah does not exist (talk · contribs)

Originally reported to UAA as "an offensive and disruptive username," however there has been some disagreement there as to whether or not this is a blatant violation. It is suspected this could be a Single-purpose account. --Tckma (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Disallow although it may be a valid viewpoint, the use of it as a username where it will appear in watchlists and talk page signatures places it under the noses of all users and it is going to be offensive to a proportion off them. Expressing/declaring atheist opinions on a users own userpage is one thing, but chosing a username that puts down other users beliefs is a whole step further. (it also seems like a pointy and antagonistic choice of words). Thus it is disruptive and not in the interests of collegial editing. Mfield (Oi!) 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • While I'm inclined to agree with the above, if this username is to be disallowed, then so should all similar usernames, such as User:Jesussaves et al. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess the thing with that is that "Jesussaves" can be viewed as more of a positive than a derogatory comment. I mean to say, as an atheist I don't believe that, but I don't find it offensive. Well as "Allah does not exist" is going to be seen as blasphemous and highly offensive by Muslims. Mfield (Oi!) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I didn't report this username to UAA when I initially saw it, but it was later reported. There are a number of religious viewpoint-themed usernames, and I do think that if one is blocked then all should be blocked. I do, however, agree with Mfield that perhaps the username was chosen just to stir up certain people. I'm still undecided on whether or not this is a blatant violation. --Tckma (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.


User has already requested and been granted a changename, this discussion is therefore moot. Shereth 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Truthinlabeling

Truthinlabeling (talk · contribs)

From UAA: Violation of username policy because it's a promotional and disruptive username; Contains "truth" and is an account involved in advocacy, and seems related to the website "truthinlabeling.org" which the editor has referred to, and is an advocacy site on the same topic this WP:SPA edits. Verbal chat 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Disallow apparently a corporate/group name. User asked "what would be wrong with being connected to truthinlabeling.org?". My answer is: Your name violates our policies, as company/group names are disallowed. You seem eager to attribute valid requests that you change your name to some kind of "pro-MSG" bias. That is not the case, we forbid all group usernames. You are free to edit under a personal account. Material you add that violates the WP:NPOV policy will continue to be removed, no matter what account you edit under. Gigs (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Disallow - clearly promotional. I sympathize with this user's cause, but usernames that are used to promote an organization are explicitly disallowed. User is free to edit under an individual name, as long as they keep neutral point of view in mind and don't add external links to promote a viewpoint. -kotra (talk) 00:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Disallow As per Kotra.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: disallow; username is promotional. hmwithτ 14:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shiptradenews

Shiptradenews (talk · contribs)

Originally reported to UAA as promotional. I wasn't entirely convinced and asked that the user be notified about the concern. Per a comment on the talk page, this user claims this is a standard pen-name they use, but that they are willing to change their username if necessary. Personally I do not see an issue; a quick Google search turns up no companies/groups/etc under "Shiptradenews" or "Ship Trade News", and the user appears to be trying to make good-faith edits. Since I am so on the fence as to whether or not he should change names, I'm requesting disuccsion here. Shereth 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow - No "shiptradenews", "ship tradenews", "shiptrade news", or "ship trade news" found using Google or Yahoo; so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it can be assumed this is not promotional. -kotra (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC) (changed to disallow, see below)
  • Disallow Looking at the edits of the user a large part of them relate to the Ports and are related to shipping. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    It's possible they are just a shipping/trading/news enthusiast. This would be like if you spent all your time editing articles about pharaohs and wizards; nothing wrong with that. In the absence of some evidence of a "shiptradenews" publication or other strong evidence, I don't think we should assume it's promotional. -kotra (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    Changed to Strong Disallow Promotional username as per his talkpage He is the Editor of " Shipping & Trade NewsLetter" His username is the name of the Publication of which he is the Editor.Do not know whether it is online and his editing is going to be in that area. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    I stand corrected. Judging by the user's contribs, I'm not sure it's being used promotionally, but it implies that the account represents an organization, not a single person, and sharing accounts is not allowed. So I would disallow this username. -kotra (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    How does this implies that the account represents an organization? --Tom (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    Because it's a shortened version of Shipping & Trade NewsLetter? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah, I sort of rethunk that one and was going to strike that, still not sure about this one so defer to smarter folks than me :), thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    He is a editor for Shipping magazine and is editing shipping and port related articles and Shiptradenews is a shortened form of Shipping & Trade NewsLetter Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    Therefore, disallow. hmwithτ 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: allow. [T]he community has decided some professionalism can be sacrificed for personal expression seems to be the key point. ÷seresin 19:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Weetoddid

Weetoddid (talk · contribs) "Weetoddid" is a corruption of "Retarded", which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Placed {{Uw-username}} on user's talk page on June 17 and user failed to respond, user has since made over 100 edits including response to a different inquiry on their talk page. --Tombstone (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not feel that my username is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and have responded on my talk page. If an admin decides that it is, I would like to be given an opportunity to change it rather than being blocked. --Weetoddid (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree... I'm not too sure how you got "retarted" out of that...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 18:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Just say "wee tod did", I think it is clear that this is simply a creative spelling of "retarded". This is an old joke. You can write down "I yam sofa king we Tod Ed" and ask your friends to say it. Just a variation on the theme. Chillum 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Insufficiently problematic to warrant any action. Someone might be offended upon seeing this username, but there are a lot of usernames that someone might be offended by. Shereth 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure. While I didn't immediately associate the name with the word "retarded" the user seems to agree that their username is a corruption of that word. Username:Retarded wouldn't be likely to survive an RFC. Neither would (just randomly) Phaggit, Mentullydissterbd or any similar corruption. On the other hand, some other self-deprecating usernames have been allowed recently. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow, harmless somewhat hidden version of self-depreciation. Kusma (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, I never said or implied this username was offensive, I said it was inappropriate. My concern is this user seems to be mainly reverting vandalism and warning new and anon users, and the warning templates come off more as a joke. This leads me to believe it is ineffective and leaves an unprofessional image of Wikipedia. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Tombstone in that the username is not ideal for maintaining a professional image of Wikipedia, and when warning users it may be less effective... however, we have admins named Bongwarrior, for whom the same reactions to his username occur. So, perhaps the community has decided some professionalism can be sacrificed for personal expression? Not sure, I'm on the fence on this one. -kotra (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:IU does not allow usernames that are misleading, promotional, offensive or disruptive. It does not prohibit humor. If there are other types of inappropriate usernames they should be added to the policy. I had made several hundread edits over a couple of months before receiving any comment on the name. If I really believed my username to be problematic I would change it. A look at my edits shows my presence is not for nefarious purposes. The term retarded is mildly insulting, but any term that refers to people of low intellect will be insulting until society changes it's attitude. I chose the name because I am physically handicapped and people often confuse physical handicaps and retardation. I also thought it might help excuse my frequent typographical errors. In retrospect I should have chosen ShortBus instead. Anyway any insult implied by the username is clearly directed at me not anyone else.--Weetoddid (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.


[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All"
Personal tools
Languages
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs