Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology

Place requests within the appropriate section by subject, at the top of the section.

Biology and related

• Talk:Glyconutrient#Request_for_Comment: Latest revisions to Glyconutrient - Please help determine whether the latest set of revisions improve the accuracy and direction of the article as compared to the previous version. Should the article remain in its new form, be reverted, some portion of the old version moved to the new version, or some portion of the new article moved to the old version? 04:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Self-incompatibility in plants#Should We Split This Article? Following a discussion in the Hebrew Wikipedia about whether or not each species should have its own article, the subject of the self-incompatibility article has also risen. Someone claims that this article should be split - as it relates to different mechanisms which are evolutionarily independent. One of the disadvantages of the current (merged) format, is that the S locus, described for different mechanisms in parallel, can be mistakenly conceived to consist of a single locus for all mechanisms. Do you think this article should be split? I don't. Gidip 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Will_This_Article_Be_the_Main_Article_for_Fetal_Development.3F. This RfC involves the question of where information about fetal development should be presented. Should it be presented in the fetus article and then be summarized in the prenatal development article? Or the reverse? Until this question is settled, writing the fetus article will continue to be a nightmare. Thanks!Ferrylodge 00:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Fetus#Request_for_Comment:_Reversion_of_Photo. This RfC involves an image here that a user named Severa has repeatedly reverted. This is the first time that I have initiated an RfC (though I previously joined an RfC initiated by someone else).Ferrylodge 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Fetus I have attempted to put a {{neutrality}} tag on this article due the POV edits by one user Ferrylodge who continues to use this page (and others) to further his positions on abortion. I original removed a non-point of view edit, to have it reverted by the individual. Rather that engage in an edit war, I left the page alone for awhile, and then put the tag on the page, after seeing this individual continue in the same vein with other editors. The user removed it, saying I didn't explain why it was there (I felt the multiple existing discussions between this individual and others on the talk page was adequate). I replaced the tag, giving a full explaination on the talk page. He removed it again, claiming I didn't "clearly and exactly explain" what I had issue with. I would like opinion as to whether the neutrality tag is appropriate. Citicat 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Request_for_Comment. Several editors arguing about what constitutes falsifiability.--MattShepherd 18:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Glyphosate#Neutrality of this article. I am filing this as an outsider; there has been quite some edit warring over the article, where one of the editors used sockpuppets to get to his point. The article is now in a stable state, but a {{neutrality}} tag has been added to the article by an anonymous editor. The tag is contested by the other editor (and I tend to agree, but I am not knowledgeable in the subject of the earlier dispute). I would like an outsider to have a look at the article, and remove the tag if appropriate. 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Article now more neutral - left note that tag could be removed by interested parties, sbandrews 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC) still a problem here sbandrews 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clinical and medical topics

• BDORT. This article was recently Arbitrated and I was banned, after I initiated the arbitration, after many months of battling to get a NPOV article and get the defamatory misleading and POV/OR statements removed, after I called two rounds of Mediation. I am officially representing the subject, Dr Omura, that is, I have his permission and support to do so. The sole editor that remains, Crum375, who is recently made an Admin, spent many months defending a version that contained blatant BLP defamatory statements about the subject that had to be Admin deleted at my request after his refusal to cooperate [diffs available on request]. Before this happened real world harm was done to the subject by these statements that the subject had to defend in real life and state to be false. He was so disturbed by them that he made a public statement[1]. Some further background is here[2][3][4][5][6]. A previous mediator Che, expressed strong concerns over Crum375's good faith in this matter and described Crum375 as "continually resistant to mediation"[diffs available on request]. Crum375 has written the article now in what I think is easily seen as a subtle but very POV/OR way which I will describe and list main points succinctly if anyone will contact me re this on my talk page. It needs some truly neutral editors. Please note: the fact that I am considered a 'single issue editor' has been used in an attempt to, but does not change the facts, as I relate them here one bit. Thank you.Richardmalter 11:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Richardmalter has taken this case to ArbCom, with essentially the same arguments, and lost. ArbCom unanimously ruled that he, along with his sock/meatpuppets, are to be indef-banned from all BDORT related pages. His bringing a closed case that was ruled upon just last month by ArbCom to this forum is inappropriate, IMO. Crum375 20:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Admin, SlimVirgin, noted the point that Arbcom ruled on 'behaviour', not content. Many professional people related to this entry attempted to stop the defamation - until it was finally remedied after much pressure - this is the 'behavior' the ArbCom ruled about. The content issues I mention above are not addressed at all. These content issues need to be addressed urgently. (As I have also noted repeatedly, despite what the approximate IP lookups found - I never used sockpuppets).Richardmalter 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• ArbCom ruled that you and your sock/meatpuppets edited BDORT "disruptively" and in an "aggressive, biased manner". They also noted that you are a single purpose account, practicing BDORT on patients. They therefore banned all of you from the BDORT related pages. As of now, the BDORT entry is well sourced, neutrally presented, and has even been modified to focus on the BDORT procedure, not its inventor, so as to eliminate WP:BLP-related issues. Any neutral editor is more than welcome to help improve it, of course, but you and your puppets may not participate on those pages, per the ArbCom ruling. Crum375 02:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Arbcom did rule this. However, that is not the whole story: they did not mention the fact that the version/article that was as they interpreted "aggressively" edited as well as many previous versions contained blatant BLP breaches and fictions (that is also a fact that you repeatedly pro-actively supported) that caused real world harm to a living person - that was Admin deleted as such at my request, and as such was determinedly edited by people trying to stop misrepresentation and harm in the real world. No one in WP has apologized which is of course the decent thing to do. This is indicative as well. As I have noted, you are being uncivil by suggesting I am lying when saying I never used sockpuppetry when I say I never did. Please be civil. IP searches can often give statistical, approximate information, not exact information. In this case it missed. Your beliefs don't change these facts and are merely wishful guesses.Richardmalter 04:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Your claims for NPOV and neutrality for the current version were also made by you to many previous versions - that had to have changes in them forced by Admins/mediators despite your and another editor's resistance to them, in order to remove uncited, inaccurate, OR, and BLP serious problems. This is currently a repeat situation - there are serious content issues. The history shows that you were greatly mistaken in the past re the OKness of the article. Real world harm was done as a result. Richardmalter 05:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_May_POV_of_Footnoted_Authors_Be_Mentioned.3F I hope it's appropriate to separate this RfC from the other one immediately below. This RfC involves subsections of the "Abortion" article which summarize main articles. The subsections cite various sources, many of which have POV issues that are described in the main articles. When I tried to insert the POV info into the "Abortion" article, others objected that the POV of the footnoted sources should not be mentioned. Thanks for any help with this.Ferrylodge 02:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Abortion#Request_for_Comments:_Have_Reverts_Been_Made_Without_Explanation.3F An editor has reverted numerous edits, but refuses to provide any reasons for those reverts, beyond saying that the edits require consensus. No reason is given why the editor thinks that the edits do not warrant consensus. The pertinent Wikipedia guideline is here.Ferrylodge 00:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Exercise physiology#Request_for_Comment This page has become an advertisement for the American Society of Exercise Physiology (ASEP). All attempts at moderation and neutral point of view have been thwarted by members of ASEP. Help is appreciated. 11:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Request_for_Comment Is there sufficient evidence to state that ADHD is neurological in nature? If so, how much weight should it be given compared to other views? Will require a literature review. 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Mathematics

Mathematics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics

• Talk:Indian_mathematics#Request_for_comment:_Reliable_Sources_for_Indian_Mathematics Feedback is requested for a problem on the Indian mathematics page, where two users have a disagreement about what constitutes reliable sources for claims in the article. 05:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Dispute over, good will restored :) sbandrews 20:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Physical science

Physics RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics

Chemistry RFC's should also be cross-posted and announced at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry

• Global warming controversy has been the home of edit wars for several years about many topics (validity of sources, ie. mother jones is reliable and unbiased, newsmax is too biased; neutrality of the article in whole; neutrality of editors; etc) and disinterested third parties are requested for comment and resolution. This POV issue results in users from one side continuously being driven away either through inappropriate sanctions or frustration. 15:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Technology and engineering

• Talk:NTFS#Request for Comment: NTFS acronym This is a dispute about the meaning of NTFS. Is it (a) "Native Transactional File System" or (b) "NT File System"/"New Technology File System"? 00:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Brake fade Contention lies between an explanation of drum brake failure caused by heat deformation of drums and gas bearing generated from brake material as opposed to loss of servo effect from change in friction coefficient. De facto evidence exists in the use of disk brakes today that have no servo and no total fade at high tmperatures.Jobst 02:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:Glock#Name capitalization - GLOCK vs. Glock - This is a debate as to the the naming convention of the article (All caps vs. not all caps). The outcome has the potential to affect 40 or more articles. There has been some minor frustration due to an apparent stalemate, but the discussion is more than civil. There are many points in favor of both positions. Input would be appreciated. 15:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC) This debate has been open for one month and is now archived. 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Talk:C++#appropriateness of external link - Please comment about appropriateness of an external link to a list of C++ related resources. 05:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Fringe science

• Talk:Psychic#"Purported" Basically the dispute is whether "psychic" should be defined as someone with purported paranormal powers, or simply as someone with those powers (with mention later in the article that there is dispute that psychics exist ). --Milo H Minderbinder 15:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)