Talk:Iwuchukwu Amara Tochi

www.yawningbread.org

I've removed www.yawningbread.org from the external links section, since it appears to be a personal blog site. While its article on the subject gives a good deal of details, it does not specify its sources, so I couldn't verify its reliability. --BorgQueen 17:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding section - Appeals

Tochi's layer "a member of the Singapore Democratic Party"? Can someone please confirm that? Uniblitz 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrected, unless someone can find a proof. --BorgQueen 05:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Redundant tags

Per Template:Multiple issues#Common mistakes. Too similar tags shouldn't be placed. Also, tags are intended to point out areas needing improvements. Please provide rationales for each tags, citing specific lines, paragraph is preferable. Thanks! I am scared that 12 tags will drive the readers away. Soewinhan (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

FACTS, not truth

File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

A video showing the basics of verifiability policy.

The one thing that irks me the most is that this dead person and the article page about him here on Wikipedia has been hijacked and politicised by the SDP. But this is the free-to-edit online encyclcopedia - Wikipedia, and per WP:Neutral point of view this should not be allowed to happen. Frankly, I would rather an expert come forward to help in the edit than to let this become another farce like the one in real life, being hijacked again by POV-pushers. Part of this can be seen in the external links that I've removed, which are linked mostly to SDP and thus making it a primary source, not as a reliable source and also, not peer-reviewed. Gentlemen, please try to remember that any unreferenced text and content will be remove without any mercy, as this is an encyclopedia we are writing here and everything has to be verifiable. If it is not factual, we don't want it. If it is biased, we don't want it either. That is all. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying anything about the quality of this article. But about your tags. You tagged the following but you have not raised specific concerns about each tag. Even if your concerns are valid, we don't put too many tags in the same category. Let's say, your tags, "Neutrality is disputed" and "nominated to check for neutrality" are both for NPOV conflict, so one is enough (not considering the validity of putting it). So does the case for "tone or style", "copyediting", "rewritten", "confusing or unclear" and so on. To summarize, about three tags are enough to state the issues clearly. Putting Twelve tags is definitely redundant. Also, some tags specifically ask for talk page discussion. Let's say if you've added NPOV tag, you should point out which paragraphes or lines violate NPOV.

1. {{multiple issues}}
2. {{cleanup}}
3. {{confusing}}
4. {{copyedit}}
5. {{lead rewrite}}
6. {{npov}}
7. {{original research}}
8. {{refimprove}}
9. {{tone}}
10. {{unencyclopedic}}
11. {{expert}}
12. {{morefootnotes}}
13. {{pov-check}}

Soewinhan (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

use term diamorphine or heroin?

The article currently uses the word diamorphine. This is commonly referred to as heroin. Would changing the word to heroin be justified or should we just make the first use "diamorphine (Heroin)"? RJFJR (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)