| Revision as of 23:26, 2 June 2008 editRFC bot (talk | contribs)216,124 editsm Update, 16 current discussions← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:43, 5 September 2008 edit undoHarej (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,255 edits redirect | ||
| (96 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| '''The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:''' | |||
| * ] Need support of third party to request mediation unless you can think of a way to solve reversion and disputes | |||
| * ] Should order be described as "revived." Does it "claim" sovereignty or does it have sovereignty? | |||
| * ] This was a national troop type that can not be readily translated into English, with a variety of translations offered (see copious sources above). The naming in Misplaced Pages is based on the same principle as that used for ]s, ]s and ] | |||
| * ] GADA 601 is an article about a South American military unit, the majority of the article covers a war with the British. Which form of English spelling should be used? | |||
| * ] there are several issues involved 1)that at the operation was not a combine/joint operation between the Red Army and the Yugoslav Army at the planing involving higher headquarters, but only involved front-line incidental cooperation at tactical level as required on those occasions when the troops from the two forces encountered each other; 2) That when this encounter occurred, the Yugoslav troops came under command of the Red Army (I need to provide a source for this, but English sources seem rare); 3) that the sources provided by User:DIRECTOR are valid, one being derived from a very general reference in the Library of Congress country dara entry, and others from a site the owner of which admitted they are not referenced (even if true) | |||
| * ] The opposition to renaming this article is based on the suggestion that another article can not be created to list pre-1907 occupations due to difficulty in defining the term | |||
| * ] Is it appropriate to use a represntative quote by the book's author stated it's main thesis, as well as quotes from favorable book reviews, even if some editors find the POV of the book objectionable | |||
| * ] Are the references in this article stating that the Jesus Myth theory is a minority in scholarly circles sufficient for the purpose for which they are used? | |||
| * ] Deleting of WWII USHMM pictures | |||
| * ] Persistent reverts to push Polish names here as well as in various related articles | |||
| * ] whether to reference modern historians and (at least one) recent book claiming there was no widespread exile from Israel (Palestine) in 70CE and 135CE under the Romans. | |||
| * ] – Should ] be listed as an Asian or as a European destination?? | |||
| * ] While many of the groups can undeniably be termed as "historic", or more precisely "native" groups of Italians, the ones closely tied to colonialism and "italia irredenta" seem to be part of someone's ]. | |||
| * ] Does go against ] as a blog, or is it a legitimate news site? | |||
| {{#ifeq:{{{hide_instructions}}}|yes| |{{RFC tagging instructions|RFChist}} }} | |||
| <noinclude>''For more information, see ]''</noinclude> | |||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 5 September 2008
Redirect to: