Wikipedia:Requests for comment

For general comments and feedback, use Wikipedia:Village pump, and choose the proper subsection.

Ultimately, the content of Wikipedia is determined by making progress toward a community consensus. However, the size of Wikipedia prevents community members from actively following every development. As a result, sometimes it's useful to request broader opinions from the rest of the community.

This page is a way that anyone can request other Wikipedians to help them resolve difficulties and disputes in articles or talk pages. Anyone may visit any of these articles, to help them reach agreement. A good quality RfC can help contributors resolve differences, add different insights, give comments and opinions on how others might see some wording, and so on. When listing a dispute here, you should also place a notice on the appropriate talk page.

It will help the RFC process if everyone who lists something on this page tries to help out at least one other page listed here.

Dispute resolution (Requests)
Tips
Assume good faith Use etiquette Be civil Be open to compromise Discuss on talk pages Failure to discuss Help desk (Request)
Content disputes
Third opinion (Request) Mediation Noticeboards Request comments (Request) Resolution noticeboard (Request)
Conduct disputes
Administrator assistance (Request) Arbitration (Request)
v t e

RFC is appropriate when you want other Wikipedians to visit the page, to allow a consensus or a better quality of decision, to help resolve a dispute or break a deadlock.

Before adding an entry here:

• Whatever the nature of the dispute, the first resort should always be to discuss the problem with the other user. Try to resolve the dispute on your own first.
• Don't forget to follow Wikiquette. Wikiquette is more important in resolving a dispute, not less.

• For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by diffs showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute will be deleted after 48 hours. The diffs should not simply show evidence of the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The two users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.
• An RFC is considered a soft requirement for entering Arbitration, which can bring punitive actions against an editor. However, do not open an RFC simply to better your odds at getting into arbitration and punish another editor. An RFC is intended to operate in and of itself as a means to resolve a dispute. An RFC is not arbitration application paperwork. An RFC is a tool for resolving a dispute. Use it as such.

• If the dispute involves allegations that a user has engaged in serious violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, create a subpage for the dispute. Use the subpage to elaborate on the allegations.
• If you are in deadlock with just one other user, consider getting a third opinion.
• For a mild-to-moderate conflict, you might try Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view. The goal is to nip potential problems in the bud.
• To request votes instead of comments, consider a listing on Wikipedia:Current Surveys.
• If you want help in getting an article up to Featured status, then list it at Peer review. Note that Peer review is not for listing content disputes.

• To request other users to comment on an issue, add a link to the Talk page for the article, a brief neutral statement of the issue, and the date.
• Only with the date, don't list the details, and don't submit arguments or assign blame.
• On the Talk page of the article, it can help to summarize the dispute.

• Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and keep calm.
• Mediate where possible - identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart.
• If necessary, educate users by referring to the appropriate Wikipedia policies.

List links to talk pages where participants cannot reach consensus and are thus stalling progress on the article. Discussions with no recent comments may have dried up, and will be removed.

1. List newer entries on top.
2. Link to the Talk page.
3. Sign entries with the date only. Use five tildes: ~~~~~.

• Talk:Arthur_Wellesley,_8th_Duke_of_Wellington - A distressful situation in need of urgent attention by those familiar w image policy, and/or the crown copyright. 13:48, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Vancouver Skybridge - a dispute over a photo of the bridge, which contains two topless women in it, should be used, cropped or deleted all together. 12:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• talk:atheism NPOV complaint about deletion of links which criticize atheism.

• Otherkin - I feel there is a severe lack of observation of verifiability and no original research in this article. Content comes mainly from a few websites which I consider dubious sources. Particularly, one editor is of the opinion that normal Wikipedia policy and guidelines should not apply to this article. Friday 23:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• Adi Shankara — there has for some time been a battle between editors who wish to state dates for Shankara that are accepted by most scholarly authorities (religious, philosophical, and historical), and those who wish to give more weight to the very different view of a set of religious institutions connected with Shankara. 21:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Libertarianism. There is a proposal to move the page to Libertarianism (capitalist). Should the page retain its current location (which is more in line with common use) or should "libertarianism" be a disambiguation page between the different uses, which may be fairer? 12:32, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

This question is not written from a NPOV, because it assumes there are different uses (that are noteworthy in an encyclopedia) of the term "libertarianism", which is a point in contention. --Serge 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Ad hominem Should the article include the neologism "Inverted Ad Hominem"? There is concern that the term itself has very rare usage and its meaning is not self-evident. It was invented several months ago by the same person who inserted it into the Wikipedia article. He claims that recognition of the fallacy supports its own inclusion. 09:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• talk:Qiyamah. POV dispute with users User:freestylefrappe and User:zora. The dispute revolves around two major points: A. the detail freestylefrappe keeps adding is based on an incorrect translation of the quranic verse(s) he cites and moreover is an irrelevant and minute detail that detracts from the main thrust of the article . B. The second point is that Freestylefrappe sees that Ahmadiyya sect views on an topic in islam should be included because they consider themselves muslim; whereas my view is that Muslims by consensus do not consider the Ahmadiyya Muslims at all. It is like someone insisting that manichaean views should be included in a christian religion article.
• talk:Biblical scientific foreknowledge. POV mess. Please help explain NPOV policy and (2) anyone iwth any knowledge of mainstream (rather than fundie) Christianity please help clean up this mess.
• Tariq Aziz - one user insists that this rogue must not be identified as Christian. Paul Beardsell 12:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Emerging Church - in need of outside views (style and content somewhat entrenched in unencylopedic form, plus article ownership issues). 22:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• talk:cult Which version is better? see [1] 16 July 2005
• Talk:Creation_science, Summary - dispute as to whether it should be stated as fact that "Creation Science is a pseudoscience" or if that characterization is sufficiently in dispute as to be an opinion. 18:22, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• History of Christianity - dispute as to whether or not Zoroastrianism should be listed as a primary influence...an anonymous user is strongly for that, claiming that the Zoroastrian faith was a key influence on Judaism. 2 July 2005 00:31 (UTC)

N.b. this is a widely held view amongst historians and archaeologists concerned with mesopotamia. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)

note also Mary Boyce, Zoroastrianism, Routledge, London and New York, 2001 [in the Library of Religion Beliefs and Practices series], p 29: "Zoroastrianism was thus the first to teach the doctrines of an individual judgement, Heaven and Hell, the future resurrection of the body, the general Last Judgement, and life everlasting for the reunited soul and body". 10:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Charles Taze Russell: One user repeatedly stating that he controls the article and reverts attempts by others to add information that doesn't conform with what he views is the official biography. Several have inserted NPOV tags, but he has reverted them. -- 05:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Polygamy#NPOV_-_Yep.2C_I_know... discusses Christian polygamy and whether the current section Polygamy#Christians_.26_seculars_-_geographically_separated is NPOV. 20:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Ludwig_von_Mises_Institute#RfC: It is stated in entry that a group (SPLC) accuses the subject group (Mises Institute) of being "Neo-confederate". How many non-Mises people should we quote with disparaging comments about the SPLC? Any? 02:49, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Intellectual property: Regarding a cited article opposing intellectual property and copyrights, one user wants to note that the article bears a copyright notice. The author of the printed article believes the comment is trivial and intended to make a non-neutral criticism of or point about the author/publisher. Is it NPOV to note this fact? -- 18:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Category talk:Greek language and Category talk:Hellenic languages and dialects. Category:Greek language is a subcategory of Category:Hellenic languages and dialects, but it's not at all clear what's supposed to go in the lower-level category and what in the higher level category. What Hellenic language or dialect cannot be considered a variety of the Greek language? I posted this question to both category talk pages several weeks ago, but since category talk pages are so rarely read, no one has answered. I'm hoping this RfC will attract more attention to the question. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Chicago,_Illinois#Chicago_Main_Page_Picture_Vote There is a lack of consensus on which main photo to use for the Chicago, Illinois article. -- 16:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Template talk:Canada Is it necessray to have flags in the footer template {{canada}}? Semi revert war going on. Circeus 20:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Malaysia – dispute over whether Malaysia is classified as a "upper-middle-income" country (by the World Bank) or "middle-income country" (by the CIA Factbook) --Andylkl ^(talk) 07:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Monarchy in Canada – dispute over the inclusion of a quotation by Justice Rouleau of the Ontario Superior Court. 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Ted Kennedy – There is an ongoing dispute over the appropriateness of the inclusion of a specific external link, leading to an edit war and page protection. 11:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Terrorism – Is the current article intro too subjective? 21:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Ken Mehlman - Should article mention Mehlman's Judaism and his specific refusal to answer questions about his sexual orientation (with a proper citation)?
• Talk:Richest American politicians - Can this article ever meet standards of verifiability and completeness? As such it isn't even sourced.
• Talk:Stalinism - additions mentioning Stalinist-era terror and slave labor are repetitively removed.
• Talk:Republican Party (United States) - Revert war over whether the article should mention "Republicans in name only" (RINOs) and Log Cabin Republicans. 04:40, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:John Ashcroft — Should the article mention the term "cooking oil" in reference to the religious practice of "anointing with oil"? 22:31, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Roy Lichtenstein - Edit war over how much of an eight line blockquote to include. 17:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Colby Donaldson — one editor wants to include and another to exclude extensive details of the happenings on a television reality programme's final episode that determined the million dollar (USD) winner. 09:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Wolverine (comics) needs comment on the level of detail required to detail the character's powers. Please comment so we can build a consensus. 19:19, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Death By Stereo Was the punk rock group formed in 1996 or 1998? A user (Allroy - the return of Peacethruvandalism) kept reverting 1996 to 1998 and is being unconvinced with these sources ([2], [3], [4] and [5]) and thinks they are bad, but they're not. The earlier version and day it was created did say 1996. I just need help stopping the user from reverting it before doing it one for one last time and he's gonna gone (I'm guessing)! -- 01:54, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Surrealism User:Classicjupiter2 Revert war, open contempt for consensus, POV pushing, personal attacks. Stirling Newberry 23:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Rob Liefeld - an anonymous user engaging in edit wars, whom two admins have not been able to reason with. Apparently Wikipedia is being tyrannical over this... 17:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:List_of_best-selling_music_artists: The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson sales are heavily incorrect, separate research published in the Talk page.
• Talk:Left Behind - A revert war is beginning between myself and a group of anonymous users who want a link to a blog. I feel this link is inappropriate and have been supported by a third party. I removed all op-ed links for fairness, but they put them back so they could have their blog link. Should I consider the link vandalism, or does the link have its place on the article? 01:15, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• talk:evolution NPOV complaint registering. The difficulty for the naturalist explanation of the origin of life is not even mentioned nor is the theism view presented. Why not? Is theism a fringe opinion? Is materialism a fact or does a materialistic view of the origin of life have strong proof in this forensic science question of the origin of life. Are theology departments held to be legitimate departments in academia? Are singularity events the exclusive property of materialism? Are singularity events repeatable though experiments?
• Talk:Neurofeedback Does the E-meter, measuring Galvanic skin response, belong to Neurofeedback, and in extension, should Scientology doctrine be presented in the article? 17:01, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:William Connolley — one editor argues that we shouldn't refer to what the subject believes, as this is unencyclopædic. 09:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Cosmology - Should the basis of the big bang hypothesis (and the assumptions that it makes, and the religious (and therefore creationist) nature of its creators) be noted, or should that information be ommitted and the big bang hypothesis stated to be a proven truth? July 23, 2005
• Darwin's Black Box (Talk:Darwin's Black Box) - wording of the introduction. Several reverts now and disengagement, including a revert after apparently constructive discussion, and an explicit request not to revert. It doesn't seem like any progress will be made without further input. 14:20, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Maser (and also Talk:Laser) - Is the M in the acronym maser commonly accepted in the scientific community as standing for "molecular" instead of "microwave". -- 06:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Race and intelligence - Are critical views adequately covered and fairly represented in this article? 21:34, 14 July 2005 (UTC):12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/Specifications survey - survey on how technical specifications should be presented in articles about aircraft? 09:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Nuclear power — there has been extensive editwarring over numerous items; NPOV eyes needed. July 1, 2005 20:19 (UTC) -- This topic is now in Protection. 4 July 2005 21:57 (UTC) -- Currently, the related Price-Anderson Act dispute is in Mediation. 18:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Talk:Chinese tickle torture While the article itself is not under attack, there is a user who is posting some pretty serious accusations on the talk page that those who contribute to this article are promoting racism against Chinese people. The user in qeustion topped it off by stating that those who wrote the article must be into BDSM which is a borderline personal attack. Neutral opinions are needed. -Husnock 21:35, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Spiro_Agnew Revert war between users who feel the famous anagram of his name in popular culture warrants a mention, and others who feel only politics should be discussed and call it vandalism. 20:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Truth - Revert war about changes to introductory paragraph. Edits by anonymous user involve unnecessary archiving of very recent and relevant material and editing of the comments of other users; repeated reversion and referring to the comments of others as "obscurantist" and "vandalism" . See also talk:true 21:06, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Brainwashing - Revert war. A particular document known as the "Molko brief" is referenced; a compromise text was previously reached, indicating that the brief deemed certain research to be lacking in scientific validation, but did not deem the theory behind the research to be unscientific in nature or deem it to be disproven. Now one of the editors who reached that compromise text is insisting that because he has found a expert who incorrectly asserts that the brief deemed all research on such theories "not scientific" (an interpretation disproven by the brief itself suggesting alternate hypotheses based on the same theory that could yet be tested and would be consistent with the collected evidence) then the other side must provide an expert citation in order to point out that this is not what the brief says. Since when did Wikipedia require a negative to be proved, let alone proven via citation? 18:51, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Homosexuality - The "Kinsey Reports" proclaim that 10% of people are homosexual, a study whose methodology is reguarded by certain people as highly flawed, although certain later studies have shown broad agreement. Should the article mention this study in the intro? -- 06:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Most recent entries at the top. Please sign entries with the date only. (Use five tildes: ~~~~~)

• Talk:Cricket#Why_is_the_sport_here_and_not_the_insect.3F discusses whether the Cricket article should be about the sport of cricket (sport) or the disambiguation page cricket (disambiguation) 22:04, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Thomson Corporation - Is the word "The" required in the article title if it's actually part of the firm's official incorporated name? Bearcat 03:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Rukario and Talk:Lucario - Which is this Pokémon's Romaji name? 13:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Talk:Missing sun motif and Talk:Missing Sun myth - debate regarding the upper case letters in the title and whether "myth" or "motif" is more appropriate. 2 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)

Wasn't this decided by vote? Should it be removed? 18:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the vote was over a copy+paste duplicate of the article, not where the original article should be located.10:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato - debate about whether or not to change naming standard en masse. Disambiguation and naming issues. Needs more voices.

This section is for discussing specific users who have allegedly violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In order to request comment about a user, please follow the instructions to create a subpage in the appropriate section below. Disputes over the writing of articles, including disputes over how best to follow the NPOV policy, belong in the Article content disputes section above.

Before listing any user conduct dispute here, at least two people should have tried to resolve the same issue by discussing it with the subject on his or her talk page or the talk pages involved in the dispute. This must involve the same dispute or concern the same disputed type(s) of activity, not different ones.

Once the request for comment is open, these two people must document their individual efforts, provide evidence that those efforts have failed to produce change, and sign the comment page. Requests for comment which do not meet these minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.

Old discussions are kept in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive.

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 the following sample listing as a template (anything within {...} are notes):

• /Example user - Allegations: {one or two short sentences giving the dry facts} ~~~~~

The boilerplate for the dispute page itself is at /Example user.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

• /Necromancing - VfDing pages to illustrate a point, uploading copyrighted material then claiming fair use without citing source for verification, does not seem to respond to any communications left on talk page. 03:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• /Gamaliel - Revert warring, ignoring consensus, making personal attacks on users.

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold
List newer entries on top

• /DotSix - Revert wars, 3RR violations, removing other users' comments, personal attacks. 01:52, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• /Famekeeper - Lack of civility, using article talk pages as soapbox to extent of interfering with their use
• /Boothy443 - Disrupts Wikipedia to prove a point that "Admins are evil", and engages in frequent personal attacks, showing a general lack of conduct in the Wiki way. Hedley 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (RfA started 14:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)).
• /Gabrielsimon - revert wars, POV pushing, disregard of policies, accusations of abuse to other editors, undeterred by several blocks due to 3RR violations
• /Pastorrussell - Claiming ownership of article, POV pushing, 3RR violations in revert war over NPOV banner
• /Ultramarine - POV warrior, continual reverts and 3RR violations, refusal to work towards any kind of consensus, conflicts with multiple editors, is on a self-proclaimed crusade to purge wikipedia of what he considers improper views
• /SNIyer1 - POV pushing, constant removal of information, failure to respond or acknowledge requests for dispute resolution, use of sockpuppets, multiple 3RR violations
• /Germen - Edit warring on Islamophobia, POV pushing, inappropriate behaviour.
• /Classicjupiter2 Revert war on Surrealism, open contempt for consensus, POV pushing, personal attacks, false accusations of violating the three revert rule.
• /Nightscream - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of wikiquette, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments.
• /DreamGuy-2 - personal attacks, invicility, blanking of attempts at resolution
• /Striver - POV pushing, severe sectarian bias, incivility
• /ARD and Jwalker - sock puppets, personal attacks, edit warring, lack of good faith
• /Alfrem - POV pushing, revert warring, sometimes resorts to personal attacks, refuses to cite sources or provide evidence
• /Flowerofchivalry - POV pushing, Revert-warring, Violation of 3RR, Lack of etiquette, Lack of wikiquette, Resorting to personal attacks, Abuse of (nonexistent) power, Not responding to constructive discussion, Ignoring comments and warnings, Utilizing anonymous IP addresses to further revert-war, Inability to procure evidence and support
• /Hogeye - edit warring, recreation of deleted pages, personal attacks
• /Nick Boulevard - POV, personal attacks, persistent copyright violation
• /68.170.0.238 - the "stop drinking soda" vandal, persistent POV edits, numerous warnings, vandalism
• /Mlorrey - dispute over NPOV and inclusion of POV, especially in regards to gun control issues
• /Trey Stone - sock puppets, 3RR violations, personal attacks, edit warring

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, and blocking or unblocking users. 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:

• /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.

Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold

Approved pages - have met the two person threshold

List newer entries on top

If you believe someone has chosen an inappropriate username under Wikipedia's username policy, you may create a subpage here to discuss whether the user should be forced to change usernames. However, before listing the user here, please first contact the user on his or her talk page and give them an opportunity to change usernames voluntarily.

New listings here, please

• Anonymous (talk · contribs): there is in fact no such user, but it is used as a signature by some IP addresses.
  • I don't think this is grounds for a permanent ban because it ought to be obvious to distinguish between an anon IP and User:Anonymous. Dunc|☺ 16:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• أسامة بن محمد بن عود بن لادن (talk · contribs). If this is the real Osama bin Laden, WP will be subpoenaed for his IP soon :) otherwise, he should probably pick another username. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

He has already showed that he is not Bin Laden by posting unrelated images to an article written in Farsi, thinking it was Arabic.Heraclius 22:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

More proposed conventions and policies can be found at Category:Wikipedia proposals.

List newer entries on top. Please sign entries with the date only. (Use five tildes: ~~~~~)

• I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. 09:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
• WT:RfD#CamelCase redirects Should some instances of CamelCase redirects be removed? Example: FinlanD. This looks very amateurish when it comes up first in a search - in fact, looks like a typo. Suggestions? --06:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC) A poll has been set up at the linked location; all who wish to express an opinion on whether to keep or get rid of CamelCase redirects (as a class) should do so there. Noel (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Proposed Examples for A7 (non-notable_bios) is a discussion of proposed examples on how to apply the newyly expanded CSD. 04:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• WikiProject Echo is looking for participants to integrate information from other-language Wikipedias into the English one
• Wikipedia:Category titles is an attempt to form consensus on the naming of categorization by country (e.g. "Lawyers in China")
• Wikipedia:Summaries is a discussion of whether or not exhaustive plot summaries are encyclopedic. 09:01, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Template:TOCright is a discussion that attempts to fomualte guidelines on when a floating table of contents should be used. It is not a fight, but this is potentially an important issue and I think we might benefit for a wider range of opnion on this issue. DES 21:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Per-article blocking is a feature request to allow admins to block certain users from certain articles.
• Wikipedia:Template locations: Should certain templates go on an article's main page, or should they be only on Talk pages? 10:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Archived convention disputes