Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WeijiBaikeBianji

Use of Further reading sections
Partly in response to Mathsci's comment, I'd like to point out that there is long-standing diversity on how to use the ==Further reading== section. For example, expand further acknowledges that editors can and do use ==Further reading== as a temporary holding pen for sources.

People who are interested in this subject might like to see WP:Further reading, a brand-new/under construction essay that is attempting to get some sort of handle on what the community thinks about this section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

POV edits
I remeber his serious POV edits like and. Worse problem than single POV edits is that he rewrites articles into generally biased version against authors like Lynn, Eysenck, Jensen, Rushton, Murray, Whitney, Levin, researchers supported by Pioneer Fund... and their scientific views and prefers authors like members of Institute for the Study of Academic Racism and their views. --Dezidor (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think this is a problem you can comment on the project page with an "outside view", or endorse other people's summaries if you agree with them.-SightWatcher (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)