Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion/Archive 4

819:

tracked. I'm pretty sure the template or a category it creates could be read by a bot (sorry if this is wrong, I don't have a full understanding of this yet!) and that could maintain a list of 3Os and active editors. We do a lot of good work here that is buried in the history, if we had a list that was maintained based on the use of the template we would record all the articles we've worked on, a useful resource for old 3Oers checking up on others(!), new 3Oers wanting to see what's expected, editors bringing disputes to see what kind of opinion they'll get, the community to see the benefit we provide, and I'm sure there are other positives! You could also generate a list of opinion givers and their contributions, which would populate the active editors list discussed above.

1384:

reverted back to the original research. I have even shown that the references used to not support the quotations used in the article. The article should fairly present the Rapture as believed by large dispensational churches, and their theologians, and churches who do not believe in a rapture (majority of them) should be listed. The article is supporting a contradicting historical premillennial view that also believes in a rapture, which is a contradiction, because historical premillennial view as described by churches who endorse this view define it as not believing in a rapture. Anyway, unless some third party people look at the evidence, this will continue to remain a biased page

3766:

discussion or a fully-fledged consensus is not the goal. What you are advocating (leaving things on the list, getting fourth and fifth (and so on) opinions, etc.) is really no different from an RfC or something like that. Nobody is trying to get points by clearing the table quickly, but once someone gives a third opinion as far as this project is concerned our role is done (aside from the person who provided the opinion). With 3+ editors involved, it's not a simple dispute and other avenues (namely increased discussion) should be pursued. I'd be sad if you left here with a negative opinion of the place, but I really can assure everyone who edits this page really does

3587:. Why have a template that says the request is declined because there are more than 2 parties involved if what you mean is the request is declined because it has been fulfilled? And, more than one 3O should be offered in disputes. It's not helpful to allow just one person to respond then remove the request before another person responds. Third opinions in disputes are some place where a number of people should jump in. I'm not going to do this again, it's a jump all over people area and do it quickly and get rid of requests quickly. Very unpleasant, these speed editing areas where it's assumed that people live their lives on wikipedia and blinking is discouraged. -- 1811:

image in the arts and culture section of the Carmel article. The user who posted the dispute here is jumping the gun on disputes and may have been attempting to manipulate a situation where he went wrong by violating the 3R rule. He has been reported and was blocked for 72 hrs for the violation but the dispute he mentions is not what was the issue. It was over his continued revert of an image that illustrated two seperate parts of the prose for his own image that is an empty stage with nice lighting and trees siluetted against a dim sky. Very pretty, but not encyclopedic.--

3989:

see the idea as necessarily providing a "Well you're right, and you're wrong" opinion (though sometimes that happens), but just to get a fresh set of eyes on a stalled discussion to provide some new ideas. Sometimes, that's much more in the vein of "I can see the point that both of you are making. I think both ideas could be integrated by...". The editors involved are free to accept, modify, or reject the suggestion given—it's not some type of binding decision. But it often does help to move a circular debate in a more productive direction.

705:

editing histories and the same analysis and the same writing, but I'm not that 3Oer. Sometimes, of course, it takes—and should/must take—a fair amount of time to put together a good 3O. I'm unwilling to give up an hour of my time if there's a non-trivial chance that my effort is being duplicated. I once basically stopped giving 3Os when, repeatedly, after I'd spent time thinking about a dispute, I realized that another editor had been working on the problem but simply hadn't taken down the listing. It

1689:

intervention by some persons who haven't behaved much better than those who originally took part in the discussion, as well as by a couple of persons who have shown openness and a constructive attitude. But the input of the latter are of no significance; the obstructors refuse to listen, and think their position proves lack of consensus. How can an article be improved if a sufficient number of dedicated but obstinate people can veto edits they don't like? The dispute is now reported to

710:

that encourages multiple responses to the same dispute—something that is more and more likely as the number of 3Oers increases. That's what we would be doing if we eliminated the second sentence.... Instead, we should set up a system that maximizes our assistance to the project by allowing us to divide up the disputes and spend our saved time doing other good work on the encyclopedia. Best wishes to all of you! I'm a big fan of the regular 3Oers.

31: 2200:'s web page showing a Guinness World Record for free-to-play MMO, aparently based on pre-announcement of the 2010 book at E3. Several other web sites mention the new record book entry for free MMO... but nothing I can spot as reliable. There is also reference to WoW holding the most popular MMORPG again for 2010... but nothing clarifying that they are changing the record from just plain "most popular" to "most popular for-pay" in the 841:

are less likely to duplicate your effort” invites a shrug of the shoulders from novice 3O’ers who see no harm in extra neutral opinions – the more, the better, since that is how consensus is often achieved in non-mediated disputes on Knowledge (XXG). Indeed, the expectation that there be only one more opinion goes against the norm on Knowledge (XXG), so that means the “exceptional” WP:3O expectation deserves clearer explanation.

419: 1577:

answer to your question is (IMO) that if the third opinion does not resolve the issue it is up to the editors to decide what to do next. The person giving the 3O should give the opinion, provide clarifications if asked, but not direct the conflict resolution process. However, this does not need to be formalized in the project page (because, after all, the 3O editor is entitled to become involved in the dispute).--

4075:

just fallen off the edge of the universe. A lot of the disputes which are listed here involve newcomers who may not know or think to look at the edit history on the 3O page to find out what happened to their dispute. And, indeed, whether intentional or unintentional, there is a taboo implied against looking at the history page which is caused by the listing instruction which says

3690: 1897: 1536:

comment on the subject. The last post i made on the talk page was a heading under "No description of what Constitutes The Peninsula of Horn of Africa" so far no one has commented on it. so now i'll go for requesting comments. since applying for third opinion is not appropriate under the sircumpstances. since it was designed to settle arguments between two parties.--

429: 1492:

name from this peninsula which comprises Somalia and eastern Ethiopia. If the wiki article Horn of Africa is only about the region then why does it not include this in its title. There is a big grammatical difference between HoA the peninsula and HoA the region. one refers to a geographical land mark and the other is a line drawn on the map, a political name.--

4010:

disputants. I agree, however, that one of the values of 3O is getting a prompt response. There's no rush on my part to clear or remove listings just for the sake of clearing or removing them, but once I've studied and considered a dispute I'm going to do something with it. One of those "somethings" is removal if it's already been answered or is inappropriate.

672:

version to see what's been removed. By not removing the article, we're sort of taking the choice away from our volunteers, and not everyone wants to offer a 4th. Some people would prefer to be working on articles, etc. or addressing an article that has not yet had a 3rd opinion and I think we should give them the information to make that choice themselves.

424: 783:, when I came across that it was again fairly clear what was going on but to write a considered 3O would take a chunk of time, so instead I left a note on the talkpage of one of the editors, which seemed to help. Leaving up the page at #Active disputes would have allowed another 3Oer to step in, but the dispute seemed to have dissolved. 4152:

over there. There really isn't a reason to keep it listed here once it's been handled. And while newcomers may be a bit confused by the process, people who take on a request remove it and leave an edit summary that's available in the history. I just don't really see a reason to disrupt the process that's in place. —

4013:

There's a slight disconnect between 3O opinions being, on the one hand, "unofficial" and "informal" and, on the other, being given "under 3O", i.e. pursuant to and in conformity with its guidelines. Due to that disconnect, and also due to the fact that any Wikipedian can jump in and give a 3O opinion

3541:

the 3O — and a good one, at that — for that dispute, for which you are to be commended. My addition was just cleanup to explain why it was being removed from the 3O list. I had to put it in the disjunctive because I wasn't certain whether you were providing an opinion expressly under the aegis of 3O,

3100:

Hmm.. I don't consider page protection to be dispute resolution, as all it does is stop the battle and forces the editors to talk first. A 3O could be given, but there are technically three editors - Ketabtoon, Inuit18, and Tajik - that seem to be involved. For this one, I would probably leave a note

1437:

However i met with a dissagreement from an editor named Middayexpress, He seems to believe that term HoA only refers to a region, he does not understand that in reality it refers to peninsula shaped like a horn and that peninsula comprises only Somalia and parts of Eastern Ethiopia, nor the fact that

840:

If you really want more volunteers to remove the listing first – instead of “learning the hard way” – you might consider better explaining why 4th opinions are not preferred (in terms of leaving additional opinions for RfC, should the dispute go to that). Simply saying it’s because “other volunteers

4115:

These 3O requests are archived so fast that it seems they are not listed at all. This is very unfriendly to newcomers. When I posted my request for a third opinion, even though I got some third opinions, I thought at first I had formatted it correctly, or it was posted somewhere else. I spent a good

4074:

offense or confusion caused by listings "just disappearing." Just removing a listing without informing the disputants — and not just the editor who listed the dispute — can leave them hanging, wondering if their listing has been removed because someone has taken it and is studying it or whether it's

2387:

I agree that RicoCorinth comments on the 3O page (and subsequently your talk page) were absolutely questionable, and you were right in repeatedly removing such material. But this doesn't mean that he is not entitled to give 3Os, if he does that in a constructive manner (and it appears it is so now).

2129:

so the line is not vague and possibly misleading. I have tried twice to edit accordingly and failed to reach consensus, I have seen no logic or reason behind the dismissal of my first edit aside from the use of the word "was". The second edit appears to be a total dismissal of the source, from those

818:

This has numerous benefits. First, it stops me writing something similar at the start of every 3O. Second, it plants a flag in the ground to "claim" the opinion, so even if someone forgets to remove it from #Active disputes, it is still obvious that someone is doing the work. Finally, it can also me

704:

Hello, all! Since I proposed strengthening the second sentence, it will come as no surprise that I oppose the proposal to remove the second sentence entirely. I have to respect any 3Oer who doesn't mind taking the risk that someone else is diligently doing the same reading and the same research into

4151:

First, oldest items should go at the top so that we know in which order they should be handled. Second, if an opinion is given then it should be delisted from here. That's how the process works: someone requests a 3O, and then the person who takes on the 3O delists it from here and gives an opinion

3988:

I'd agree there as well, but I also think one of the nice features here is that generally a pretty quick response does happen. I initially started contributing here after making some requests and finding the responses I got to be helpful in moving a stuck debate between two editors forward. I don't

3765:

Not disagreeing with you, IP, but Third Opinion isn't trying to solve any seriously important issues here. Person A thinks one thing, Person B thinks the opposite, and discussing it isn't getting anywhere. A third opinion breaks the "tie," so to speak. It's incredibly informal, but simple - more

3357:

From reading his edits, I think they are OK – they make more plain the collegial, voluntary nature of the 3O process. I've also read the 3O that Amelioration gave linked above, and based on that it seems he understands what 3O is supposed to be. TransporterMan, can you be more explicit about your

2610:"I think it's a little uncivil for you to use my name as a section title, especially since I use my real name." - Not at all. If you choose to use your real name, one of the consequences is that ... your real name will be used. There is no pleasant way to express concerns about another's behaviour. 1871:

Hi Teahot, having received one of these templated 3O's I'd like to offer some feedback that the formatting makes it comes across as a bit 'official' rather than as a third, neutral, opinion. It also visually suggests that the opinion is locked away, not to be commented on or engaged with. I prefer

1576:

would be the most likely next step). I've been pleasantly surprised at the number of times the third opinion is simply accepted and the editors move on but I've seen cases where the opinion is rejected, the 3O maker gets involved in the dispute, or the opinion is completely ignored. The bottom line

1571:

A third opinion is not a final decision but rather it is just another opinion though it comes with the advantage that the person giving it has no declared stake in the conflict. Sometimes, by providing a fresh look at the conflict, the third opinion provides a way out of the impasse (or stalemate).

1481:

I tried discussing the matter on the talk page. in fact the debate covers one of the largest sections on the talk page. however no concesus was reached. I asked for editor assistance twice. The first time i was told to reach a consensus. I followed this advise but got nowhere with the other parties

813:

that will encourage the formation of consensus and help us all to produce a better encyclopedia. It takes some time to review your discussions, check for sources (if necessary), review the aforementioned policies and guidelines and write the opinion, so I will post it here soon, but in the meantime

4119:

Can you please just remember that when you make projects and pages that move at breakneck speed, there should be some reason for doing so that trumps the vast confusion and off-putting to newcomers it creates? There's no reason a request for a third opinion can't sit for an hour, then be archived.

2413:

Alright, that's fair. I was just somewhat flustered by this whole thing, so I wanted to bring it to light and make sure that the community had a chance to comment on it. If everyone else is okay with it, then I am too. Hopefully if anyone he helps is unhappy with his conduct, they will speak up. —

2339:

Any editor is allowed to give third opinions (or any opinions for that matter) unless they have been banned from a certain area. There is no mechanism to prohibit the offering of opinions short of a topic ban. I understand your concerns regarding the temperment of certain editors. If there is a

1810:

Dispute # 9 on the project page is incorrect. I do not know why the user has claimed a dispute on the lead image. I am the photographer of that image and simply made a statement that I have better images to upload that are more illustrative in a post justifying my replacing an older low resolution

1696:

The problem with posting on the talk page of the project is that it's likely to attract people with a strong pro-MLK bias. That's an overall problem, too. MLK has meant much to many people, and few want to get their picture disturbed. The motive that lies closest at hand for engaging oneself in a

1196:

and I was wondering what the protocol would be for removing it from the Active disagreements list. As far as I can tell, the interaction between the two users is limited to the half-dozen reverts across a few months, three comments total on the talk page itself, and a short but sweet ANI report.

778:

is a good one here. I generally follow a link, have a look at what's going on and then decide if I want to get involved or not. I'd looked at Eddie Albert, looked at a few sources and it was clear what route the 3O would take, but it was also quite an undertaking and I didn't have the time. When I

709:

be that a fourth or, egad, fifth opinion would be useful to a particular dispute. In my experience, however, additional opinions are usually duplicative. I can even imagine situations where a fourth or fifth opinion would exacerbate a dispute! In any event, I would not advocate setting up a system

160:

That's an interesting point. In my limited work on 3O (admittedly, I am not the most assiduous contributor..hehe), I have occasionally noticed editors who are extremely civil and willing to work with one another. But, I hadn't thought of the idea of rewarding that behavior. You definitely raise an

3125:

User Tajik came to the scene only once and he left after that. Right now the dispute is between 2 users (me and Inuit18). I asked an admin to take a look at the topic (and give a third opinion), but all he did was fully protect the article and asked us to solve the problem by our self. That won't

2523:

be whether the CAI trade association's own duplicitous propaganda about itself should be included in Knowledge (XXG) (any more than Holocaust denial or the belief that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax should be included). Whether to include a lobbying organization's own duplicitous spin about

1491:

I would like to point out that the term Horn of Africa Doesn't only refer to the region. As middayexpress seems to think and you also. That is incorrect.it is one of the definitions of the term. The name horn of Africa in fact refers to a peninsula shaped like a horn. and that the region takes it

3502:

I think you misunderstood, you were not being declined but rather the 3O request was. Another 3O request was made after you gave one and that was declined on the basis that it has already been made by you. The template used makes it clear that it is the request being declined("Your Third Opinion

2906:

Third opinions are suitable for giving an independent point of view on narrow, good faith disputes. Both disputants have admitted that they are biased. This dispute is neither narrow, nor in my opinion, good faith, but is instead largely a personal dispute over editing practices rather than over

1555:

This is a request for a new section on the project page entitled "What to do if a third opinion does not resolve the issue". My question is, do you get another third opinion? Or are there other options? Or should the first third opinion be the final decision? In my case, a third opinion has been

1535:

There reason for the lack of activity is because the argument has been going on for a long. if you check how many post ive made regarding the case, it is quite extensive. As i said earlier the matter went before assitance editors twice, Secondly the editors involved in the matter are refusing to

1306:

but stated that part of the dispute is over "on whom the burden of Google hit analysis falls" - but there really isn't any dispute about this aspect. To me it seems like he's trying to frame the issue in a way that is likely to prejudice outside editors to his view. I apologize if this isn't the

671:

While I agree that a second 3rd opinion (cough, cough, 4th opinion) can be valuable, I think that people who come here to offer 3rd opinions would also like to clear backlog, and that some people may not wish to offer a 4th opinion. If you do wish to do that, you can always look at a recent old

3406:

about them as I'm just not certain that — with no disrespect to you MM — they do much at all. Since they were made with no discussion or notice here (which I'm not condemning, but just noting by way of explanation), I just wanted to bring them to everyone's attention. No more than that. Just an

1597:

Regents, recently I've been experiencing more of the latter, where I get pulled in and the situation escalates. To answer the original question, though, there are a couple of options. RFCs are always an option, but I've found that if the page falls within a Wikiproject and the project is fairly

456:

If I understand correctly, the idea is that who requests a third opinion does not sign himself in the interest of "neutrality". Why is it so? I have my own opinion and no reason to hide them, the other editor has his own, and a priori we are all civil people discussing civilly. So why anonymous

1383:

article is in an edit war. About four authors are trying to maintain original research on the page that does not represent the views of any large christian organization, or notable scholars. I have provided several articles demonstrating that the statements are incorrect, but it is continually

4009:

I never remove a dispute for having more than two disputants unless I have first studied it and given serious consideration to taking it. Admittedly, the study and consideration sometimes do not take very long, as was the case with IP69's case. And I have opined in disputes with more than two

1433:

The article about the Horn of Africa is badly abridged,It mentions that the horn refers to a peninsula but does not say what it comprises and it also mentions that it is the name of a region.I tried to post the complete defenition which was, that the Horn of Africa refers to a peninsula which

1226:

My inclination would be to leave it in and/or give a third opinion. The purpose of a third opinion is to give an alternative view which may help break the reversion cycle and provide the basis for consensus. It is an outside opinion as opposed to a 'right' view and it never hurts to give one.

771:<-- Hi all, I think this is my first time on this talk page, so nice to be reaching consensus without having to refer to a guideline or policy or point a new editor in the right direction! I think this is a bit of a tough one. Useful 3Os take some work, and it's a pain to see that wasted. 1688:

suggests that there is no willingness to reach consensus. A cotterie of people seems to have decided that their opinions trumps wp policy and sound arguments. Thus, they won't by any means accept an edit that includes an embarrassing quotation. Two RfC:s have been submitted; they have led to

786:

Sorry for the long-winded way of doing this. Second, a few weeks ago, in my early 3Oing, I wouldn't remove the listing until after I'd contributed an opinion. I did this as I was unsure of my "convictions", but can now see that if I came across someone doing that I'd be a bit peeved if I was

126:

Editor's Barnstar, Barnstar of Diligence, Barnstar of Good Humor, 2 Half Barnstars, Barnstar of Peace, or Anti-Flame Barnstar might each be appropriate, depending on the specific circumstances. I think it's great that you're taking the initiative as a 3O provider to give editors in conflict

797:

So, my suggestion is that the sentence stay as it is, generally the editors who don't remove the listing are inexperienced or unsure of their work, so it's a self-selecting check. I think we should consider the use of a template to introduce the 3O in the article talk page. something like

3637:

Good point about the template, but IP69 please take note it's my personal template (see {{User:TransporterMan/Templates/TM3ORrem}}), indeed one I created just today, not a general one available for use here at 3O. I'll rework it and hope that you reconsider joining our work here. Regards,

1072:

Um, I think you posted in the wrong place. 3O isn't a "cabal case"; it's an informal way of breaking a deadlock between editors. I'm going to copy this text onto the Carabinieri page for whoever chooses to handle this one. Until then, please keep the discussion on that page. Thanks. —

3071:

If there is a dispute resolution process (such as RFC) in progress for the article, even if a completely different issue, then it should be completed before requesting a third opinion." Is page protection considered to be, without more, a dispute resolution process for that purpose?

478:

You're correct on all points. The requests are anonymous to provide a modicum of protection against bias, however unintentional, on the part of s/he who will respond to the request. The idea is to avoid the responding editor forming an impression that the requestor is a troublemaker

2810:

Honestly, that article is not on my watchlist. I went through each of the open 3O requests and looked to see if anyone had answered them yet, and I saw something on the top of that page that seemed out of place, so I corrected it. I have no plans to edit that talk page again. —

2527:

The problem is, the edit in question contradicts an extremely reliable source -- a peer-reviewed textbook, published by Yale University Press, that won the American Political Science Association prize for the best book on urban politics. It is currently used in America's best

3126:

solve the problem at hand. What we need is few other neutral wikipedians to go over the discussion (where we have presented our points) and the source once and give a third opinion. It is a very short discussion and it won't take too much time to go over it. Thank you (

483:

is a victim of a pile-on. If all the responder sees is the request, and not who made it, it's easier to go in and give his or her views without bias. Sure, responders can go look at the history to see who made the request, but just because they can doesn't mean they do.

3442:

You know, I asked for a 3O and got some outsiders watching an article. I thought that was very helpful, and that I should contribute to the project by giving a couple of third opinions also. I did one, then that article was rejected for getting a third opinion because

2130:

who awarded the record, as a reliable source, a third opinion is necessary to resolve this as I have reached a dead end. My edits are now being called synthesis and original research despite relying on a simple summary from the originator of the included information.

3161: 4060:

The gap between those two extremes must be filled, in my opinion, through ethics. I've tried to resolve and clearly state, for my own benefit and the benefit of the disputants who I deal with, the ethical issues raised by this disconnect by setting them out in my

2585:

There is no procedure for pre-excluding an editor from participating in 3O -- that would turn it into a cabal -- and even if there were, I would think I should be evaluated on the merits of my own performance (as should you), not on the basis of your targeted,

568:

actually responding to the dispute. It's very frustrating, of course, to spend time on a dispute only to realize that someone else has been working on it (but simply hadn't taken down the listing). I suggest we say something more affirmative. A suggestion:

374:(undent) I was thinking of the scales of justice image used in the userboxes, but for some reason I have a hard time rectifying it in my mind with the concept of "3". I'm going to put a draft one together and toss it up here and see what everyone thinks. 4210:

New Year's Eve seems to me to be a good time to recognize the contribution of long–standing 3O Wikipedians. Here's the question: Are there any other 3O Wikipedians still regularly active here who have been grinding this grist as long or longer than:

3153:, for award to Third Opinion Wikipedians who do an excellent job on a specific job, or just a great job in general. Socrates rendering an opinion while reaching for the cup of hemlock seems amusingly representative of what we do. And, therefore ... 2248:

As to what can be done... as I have made clear: if no one else removes it, the content will stay in the article. You don't need my permission to edit. You made the edit, I removed it, you restored the content... and voila, there it is. I see

2845:

If I may offer a third opinion here, I think you should both just forget about this and move on. There's nothing to be gained from going back and forth, and as the issue is largely resolved let's just end this here and go build some content! ~

2488:" where X could be sourcing, neutrality of a statement, etc. etc. The rough idea is to avoid edit wars spreading out of the user talk page since the two parties involved may have different ideas about what constitutes a neutral description.-- 1278:

I had a squiz at this issue yesterday and got the distinct impression that things seemed to be progressing without 3O input, so I didn't bother getting involved. I don't know if that's relevant, or if this is the place to mention it. Cheers,

4051:, a Wikipedian has the freedom to, without danger of incurring any sanction, ignore some or all of the 3O guidelines when responding to a 3O listing. Athaenara is absolutely right about our freedom, but just as we're not forced to exclude, 2626:

At this point I think disengaging would be a good course for both of you to consider carefully. (Speaking as someone who just disengaged from 2 articles, disengaging improved my day considerably. Those just aren't my problem any more. :)

935:

I split them into two templates, one with headings, one without. You can click to view their output, or copy and paste to use them, they're self-signing but it's always best to preview them before saving the edit that introduces them:

2531:

That's not a dispute about Jan Hickenbottom's Questions & Answers About "Community" Associations -- and the reliability of the textbook is the very definition of Knowledge (XXG)'s best kind of source, so that can't really be

1510:. There are at least four editors involved there, so that makes it ineligible for a third opinion, which is normally used to settle a dispute between two editors. But again, remember that I agree with them, so there is sort of a 2340:

long and clear pattern of inflammatory behavior, you may wish to notify an administrator for evaluation of possible warnings or sanctions. Otherwise, the best option might be to disengage. Best wishes in your future editing —

1006:

his edits are nonsense: he himself admits that there was no resistance to Mussolini before 1943, but insists to denounce the Carabinieri for falling to participate in it (difficult I think to be part of something that did not

4020:"The 'two editors' guideline is useful, but it is not cast in iron or carved in stone. We're free to exercise discretion, in the sense of the freedom to make a decision in a specific context. We're not forced to exclude." 3969:" ... it's a jump all over people area and do it quickly and get rid of requests quickly. Very unpleasant, these speed editing areas where it's assumed that people live their lives on wikipedia and blinking is discouraged" 2651:

I think it's incivil to put a user's username in a section header, because it points a finger at that user, and focuses attention on that user. The discussion on this page is supposed to be about improving the project. --

3378:

I'm OK with the changes. Most notably, the edits replaced "dispute" with "discussion," which I think better conveys 3O's mission - we're here to discuss, not participate in disputes (side note: more often than not, a 3O

3383:

solve a dispute, but it can just as easily re-frame the argument and re-focus discussion between the original involved editors). Otherwise, the edits cleared up the language quite nicely to better describe the process.

732:

is for. If I am going to put a lot of effort into "solving" a dispute, I don't want to get spend a bunch of time only to find that someone has just rendered basically the same opinion making my work a waste of my time.

3483:

I think you misread what TransporterMan wrote there. After the request for a 3O was removed from this page, Richard Norton relisted it. TransporterMan's comment was just to confirm that the issue had been dealt with. —

747:

Obviously people should be removing the listing after giving a comment. But if it so happens that two people see a listing on this page and give comments at the exact same time, it's not really the end of the world. —

2234:(edit conflict)Further, I have hope that an interested editor with access to the 2009 book could provide more detail than the single line on the web site. Unfortunately, I have not found a free web-searchable copy. 2457:

Sorry, I read the rules -- but missed the parts about brevity and neutrality. I tried to add it by cutting out the nonneutral miniparagraphs -- making it twice as brief -- but HelloAnnyong just reverted me a third

1598:

active, posting on the talk page of that project to get more people involved in the debate tends to work. But I've been struggling with this sort of thing these days, so I'm curious to see what other people say. —

3940:

The "two editors" guideline is useful, but it is not cast in iron or carved in stone. We're free to exercise discretion, in the sense of the freedom to make a decision in a specific context. We're not forced to

559:

Hello, fellow 3Oers! The section on providing third opinions reminds us—when adopting a dispute—to remove the listing from the page, noting in the summary how many disputes remain. After that, it currently says:

4120:

They can be added in order, newest ones on top, someone pop the oldest ones of the bottom of the stack when they're an hour old? You then avoid the confusion, the searching for the post, the seeming hostility. --

809:. Please note that I haven't previously been involved in editing this article and have had no dealings with the two editors that would prejudice my opinion. I am here to provide an opinion in accordance with 3843:

My way of dealing with disputes which got a third opinion but were not removed from the project page has been simply to remove the item with a comprehensive edit summary (contribs links aid quick checking):

3548:

There are no members, per se, here; any Wikipedian can give a 3O, but those who choose to do so consciously, can choose to call themselves Third Opinion Wikipedians. I hope that you will. Very best regards,

1736:

I wish I had known about this service, 3O in general, sooner. I've done a lot of editing but not as much as some of the obsessive editors who could benefit from a third opinion. 21:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

681:

Besides, if 3O doesn't resolve, the dispute progresses to RfC, where 4th opinions and beyond are offered, so in this context of 3O I think we should give our editors the option to avoid duplication of work.

3507:

has been declined") and that the reason for that is that you have already provided an opinion. Nobody called you filth or an outsider, nobody was being hostile towards you. Your opinion was not rejected.

604:

I sort of agree. Yes, it's courteous to remove the posting before responding. But on the other hand, two people responding to a 3O just generates a little more consensus - or, failing that, discussion. —

3064:. The editors involved in the 3O request are involved in the war, which has continued over a number of months. Since the 3O process requires good faith and neutrality, shouldn't this request be denied? 1623: 873:

Hey, woah, no apology needed! I'd looked at the debate and decided it could wait until the morning if no-one else did it. You did it while I was sleeping and gave an awesome opinion, so everyone wins!

794:, a statement of neutrality on the article and a statement about dealings with the other two editors. Some choose to put a heading over the top, but I generally prefer to keep my 3O in the text. 537: 4234:

Please list them in this thread if there are. I think anyone with a first edit in 2007 or earlier deserves to be listed. (I apologize to any folks I've missed; I just went quickly through the

4070:

I feel sadly ironic that I offended IP69, because my purpose in posting removal notices on the dispute pages — which I admit I did in a manner which was ham handed in his case — was to try to

2218:

This is what the disagreement stems from, the source explicitly cites subscribers, but Sinneed does not agree with the inclusion of that in the article, I do not know what else can be done.

779:

came back to it Mishlai had written a sterling 3O but I felt one editor might need it underlined to them, to emphasise where the consensus probably was, and to comment on Mishlai's work. At

1250: 921:

Good idea overall & thanks for taking the initiative. I made it so the template start a new subsection and otherwise tweaked the wording & the formatting of the template a bit. --

2599:

Finally, HelloAnnyong, you should have advised me that you had used the project talk page to lodge a complaint against me, so that you could come looking for justice with clean hands. --

1846:

To make my replies stand out (particularly if at the end of a long dispute) I was highlighting my reply in different ways. In order to standardize and simplify my replies, I have created

1102: 2484:

The general idea is that the dispute is described in the article talk page rather than the 3O page. On the 3O page, the dispute should read more or less as follows: "dispute about X in

2307:). Basically he left a request on the 3O page that was pretty long and not really neutral, so I combined it with another pending request on the same page and neutralized the statement 2145:

This does not seem like a dispute that can be resolved via 3O, since several editors are already involved in the discussion at the article's talk page. If no consensus can be reached.

1322:

It's probably not a great idea because the last thing we would want to see is an edit war on the 3O page! One of the 3O regulars will, most likely, fix the wording sooner or later. --

3265:

has made the following changes to the 3O project page. While they seem fairly benign, especially when read in context, I'm not at all sure that they're an improvement to the project.

2519:

That's such a small part of it! Even if the source were deemed reliable -- (I don't know how that could happen, but everything happens on Knowledge (XXG)) -- then the question would

2524:

itself is an undue weight issue, as the reply to that would be that the vast majority of all reliable sources contradict the trade association's duplicitous description of itself.

1453:

Um, I only see a handful of edits on that page from a month ago. It looks like at least three different editors reverted your edits. Perhaps you should try starting a thread on

1781:

would be helpful. This isn't a huge issue, so DR does seem like overkill, but we're keen to solve this amicably so would like to avoid waiting until full-scale DR is required.

1506:

The fact is that there still hasn't been any additions to the talk page for the past month. Discuss your edits on the talk page there, and if you're still unhappy, try for an

2438:

Is that what this talk page is for? Getting community comment on new editors that offer third opinions? Kind of like an RFC on an editor written into a project talk page? --

905:

I think this is a good idea. I removed the sentence about prior relationships with the article of the users because it is too onerous IMO, a third opinion is welcome :-).--

3609:

TransporterMan, you may want to consider not using that template, as it can be offputting in its attempt to be general. Personally I prefer writing individual messages. —

1774:

editors are at a stalemate. We appreciate that this doesn't qualify for 3O, but if someone neutral could take a look at the issue and help us out it would be appreciated.

564:

This sentence is written so neutrally! Indeed, I'm not sure it's entirely clear from the sentence that we think it's a darn good idea to remove the listing from the page

2196:

New eyes are certainly good. The annoying part is that I agree with the edit itself... but it simply isn't supported by the source, as I read it. A web search turns up

2013:

site, all the information is accurate as shown through the references, the site has been active for weeks with no problems. The site is being inappropriately targeted.

4040:: first, the two editor requirement and, second, the fact that a 3O opinion cannot be "counted" towards consensus and be forced on the losing disputant as a tiebreaker. 1034: 728:

for a reason ;) ... but seriously, these are supposed to be simply disputes that can be mediated by a 3rd party. If more opinions are needed, well that's what

1434:

comprises somalia and parts of eastern Ethiopia,and that the term is extended to refer to a region which comprises Djibotui, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia.

1298:

If I have a problem with how an editor presented the issue in dispute at the 3O page am I allowed to change or reword it? Specifically, user Novickas filed a

1040:

his knowledge of things like Cabal Cases and third opinions point to someone who is much more familiar with wiki-policy than a beginner - so the suspicion of

3542:

or just entering the discussion about the dispute, but since 3O is for disputes between 2 editors, either way it took it outside the scope of this project.

3937:

Whether the editor who gave a third opinion is someone I've seen around the project before or not, any valid third opinion is acceptable and quite welcome.

2579:

HelloAnnyong, I've been advocating compliance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines long before you ever started contributing to Knowledge (XXG).

2063: 1482:

so i went back a second. this time i was told to go for arbitration. So now am following the process of dispute resolution until i can get to arbitration.

1197:

Would I (or others, in the future) be justified in removing the listing and asking the players to talk it out a bit more, or is that just unreasonable? ~

1886:

Thanks for that feedback. I have tweaked the format so there is only a light line to separate the response rather than a box. Example result copied here:

1461:

and wrote that your definition of the region is somewhat fringe, which seems to be true. So again, your best bet is to discuss on the talk page first. —

1014:" what else have they not been known for??? playing basketball comes to mind; also we would need to mention then that they are not known to have climbed 94: 2516:

Well the drag is -- the way it's phrased -- it's couched within the concept of this being a dispute about the reliability or credibility of the source.

2465:

neutral, and phrases the dispute in a way that doesn't describe what the dispute is really about, and I seem to have no way to correct that up top. --

1872:

something a bit more inviting to help reach consensus, but obviously that's just my reaction/preference. Thanks for your contribution BTW. Cheers,

634: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3452:

If this project intends such overt hostility to wikipedia editors who are not project members it needs to be titled or labeled to make that clear.--

3101:

on the talk page of WikiProject Afghanistan and maybe WikiProject Central Asia and ask to get people involved. Another possibility is to take it to

3022: 2002:

have exactly the same content. If anything the two pages use more references on the data provided then UVL and U-Haul combined. In regards to the

1652:

Perhaps the guidance of this project page could add a few helpful recommended next steps as best practice? How about something along the lines of:

4062: 648:

This is best done before responding so that other editors are unlikely to respond at the same time as you and duplicate your effort unnecessarily.

1753: 3772:

Additionally, apologies to all for removing the original request - I simply do not think people should be here without at least some discussion.

626:

When providing a third opinion, remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain.

3879: 1721:, yes, something like that would have been useful to me. Would anyone like to write this up properly for inclusion into the project? Thanks. -- 492: 4142: 3949: 2020: 2950: 1269: 588:

Sounds reasonable. We should include language asking that the request be restored if, for any reason, a response is not actually offered.

2006:

site, it's merely identify the product which has received a patent from the US Government, and also identifies the purpose of the device.

2999: 2632:

I am sorry both of you had unpleasant experiences and wish you both happy editing, and continuing both of your valuable contributions.-

141:

I believe that if people sow a spirit of compromise and learn from their prior behaviour, then it should be noticed and recognized! :-)

3467:

Um, the template message says that three people are already involved. I counted three, including you. So what exactly is the problem?

3794: 2866: 1994:

has placed a deletion tag on the two pages claiming they are too advertorial. When in actuality, they are not, as similar companies,

1213: 1684:

I wonder if there are possibilities at all to get a solution if the subject is sensitive and politically charged. My experience from

4238:

history looking for user names that I recognize and these are the ones I spotted.) Individuals listed here will be given a suitable

3857: 2304: 3671:

the template to remove the reference to "declined." That was, frankly, just plain stupid on my part. Here's what it looks like now:

2790: 2708: 1658:

ask for comments from other article editors on the talk page who have not yet commented (and give a reasonable time for responses),

4239: 3389: 3150: 1767: 947: 1971:

BTW I have added the option for the template to be used as a placeholder to let the talk page know you are working on a reply. —

1627: 3861: 2995:

Nah, it isn't unwelcome, I just seem to have gone to the wrong place to get a third opinion on the many points we disagree on.

2966: 47: 17: 4189:

The note was not uncivil, you just misunderstood it. Removing listings that are already dealt with is not uncivil. Good-bye.

1556:

given, yet the other party does not agree with the third opinion. Where do we go from here towards a resolution? Thanks. --

2318:. Given his hot temper, it seems like he shouldn't be trying to help resolve disputes. I've consulted with Athaenara, who 112: 4116:

10 minutes looking for it. It did not occur to me that it had probably been archived the very minute it had been posted.

3895:

I hope I never remove a dispute simply because there are three editors involved, but I do when there are more than that:

1697:

long and tedious dispute is a feeling of sympathy for the subject. I don't know where to find objective people to engage.

2352: 1044:

being a sock of some other POV warrior is high (compare with the extreme edits of another anti-Carabinieri POV warrior:

2596:

Moreover, I think it's a little uncivil for you to use my name as a section title, especially since I use my real name.

1011: 1749: 787:

duplicating the effort. It is therefore important to make clear to fellow 3Oers that you are working on the dispute.

503:

Very well put. It is very helpful to the 3O editor to not know who made the request; simply that one has been made.

308:; those kinds of values, you know? I read on a deletion reviewers subpage somewhere (and he probably nicked it too) 3537:

I've already said this to IP69 in a couple of places, but it bears repeating here: No, it's just the opposite: You

2593:

Furthermore, what initiation process has everyone else had to go through to be deemed worthy enough to participate?

940: 887: 38: 3904: 3853: 4138: 3592: 3457: 2349: 2311:. But then he reverted it as vandalism, and then we got into a little fight that spilled over onto my talk page. 2024: 397: 392:

What a cool idea. Will use these barnstars if helpful and appropriate to celebrate mutually satisfying outcomes.

1631: 214:

I'm up for it. I can see about tossing one together tomorrow. What would the picture be? The scales of justice?

4310: 4258: 4104: 3824: 3745: 3654: 3565: 3423: 3345: 3307: 3228: 3193: 3088: 3041: 2927: 2485: 2954: 1265: 3003: 2121:, I insist the line take into account that this was awarded based on subscribers, as is stated in the source 859:, for causing you to duplicate my work. It had not occurred to me to remove the entry before addressing it. 1816: 1685: 1193: 1178: 895: 830: 4130: 2946: 2614: 2016: 1741: 1438:

the name is extended when refering to the region because most of it area lies well outsied the peninsula.--

1257: 470: 4291: 4079:

Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.

3788: 2860: 2535:

So to call this a dispute about source credibility/reliability, is such a half-truth it isn't really true.

1745: 1209: 379: 219: 166: 2707:

I don't think you should have started this thread at all. Project talk pages aren't the right places for

2388:

Of course, if there's further problems, then you can ask for dispute resolution or admin intervention. --

1511: 3160: 2494: 2298: 2116: 1583: 1344: 1328: 1233: 1023: 911: 846: 725: 486: 258: 4270:

You've already got a 3O barnstar, but I'd add you to the list for all your contributions. I'd also add

1251:

It has come to attintion that a dispute between Avery_player2011 and Michael herc has contuined to boil

435: 4047:

to this extent: By the very nature of 3O, by the nature of Knowledge (XXG) editing in general, and by

2035:

This isn't within the jurisdiction of a third opinion. Leave your thoughts on the AfD page, not here.

1938: 1861: 1671: 1572:

Sometimes it doesn't. If it doesn't, editors are expected to use other means of dispute resolution (a

4134: 3808:

No apologies needed or appropriate. Your removal of the listing was as it should have been. Regards,

3588: 3453: 3177:

I give this initial award to all my brother and sister 3O cabalists for the great work that they do.

2613:

I trust both of you discussed before reverting, and feel confident you were both editing in complete

2346: 1856:, please see the template page for instructions and an example. Suggestions for improvement welcome.— 1389: 715: 578: 545: 464: 393: 1991: 1010:

is wording is not encyclopedic at all: i.e. "The Carabinieri are not known to have been part of the

4295: 4243: 4089: 3980: 3956: 3922: 3809: 3730: 3639: 3550: 3408: 3330: 3292: 3248: 3213: 3178: 3131: 3073: 3057: 3026: 2912: 2743: 2176:, in which case a 3O may be appropriate. Next time, keep in mind that requests should be listed at 1638: 1454: 1424: 1261: 926: 738: 663: 442: 108: 3241: 3102: 2587: 1537: 1493: 1439: 1400: 457:

requests? And furthermore, in the history all editors' names are visible. Am I missing something?

4227: 3990: 3760: 3472: 2402: 2187: 2159: 1953: 1934: 1873: 1857: 1812: 1718: 1667: 1408: 1280: 1174: 1152: 1110: 1061: 891: 856: 826: 511: 132: 4316: 4285: 4264: 4195: 4163: 4110: 4088:

There's more I'd like to say, but this is already too long. Best regards, and Happy New Year! —

3995: 3983: 3959: 3830: 3803: 3751: 3660: 3620: 3596: 3571: 3514: 3495: 3476: 3461: 3429: 3393: 3371: 3351: 3313: 3251: 3234: 3199: 3135: 3116: 3094: 3047: 3007: 2982: 2933: 2892: 2875: 2822: 2805: 2757: 2717: 2686: 2658: 2638: 2605: 2544: 2499: 2471: 2444: 2425: 2404: 2378: 2355: 2333: 2276: 2262: 2250: 2243: 2227: 2213: 2191: 2163: 2139: 2110: 2091: 2075: 2050: 2028: 1980: 1961: 1942: 1925: 1881: 1865: 1835: 1820: 1799: 1730: 1709: 1675: 1641: 1609: 1588: 1565: 1545: 1525: 1501: 1472: 1447: 1412: 1393: 1364: 1349: 1333: 1316: 1288: 1238: 1220: 1182: 1156: 1130: 1114: 1084: 1065: 930: 916: 899: 868: 850: 834: 759: 742: 719: 691: 666: 616: 597: 582: 571:

Please remove the listing before responding, so other volunteers will not duplicate your effort.

549: 523: 497: 445: 401: 383: 355: 318: 263: 223: 193: 170: 147: 136: 120: 2322:

and told me to bring it up here. So does anyone have any thoughts on how we can handle this? —

4275: 4271: 4215: 4153: 3908: 3883: 3782: 3610: 3485: 3262: 3106: 2882: 2854: 2812: 2747: 2676: 2633: 2415: 2323: 2272: 2258: 2239: 2223: 2209: 2135: 2081: 2071: 2040: 1789: 1599: 1541: 1515: 1497: 1462: 1443: 1360: 1312: 1205: 1120: 1074: 981:

is a POV warrior, who wishes to denounce the Carabinieri with his POV, original research ideas

864: 780: 775: 749: 687: 656: 606: 593: 375: 215: 162: 3976:

compulsion to keep the list of active disagreements empty at all costs, nor should there. —

1913: 1037:, but he uses it as evidence for the personal opinion he took from the aforementioned blog... 562:

If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.

3865: 2800: 2712: 2653: 2600: 2539: 2489: 2466: 2439: 2373: 2294: 1995: 1957: 1877: 1705: 1578: 1339: 1323: 1284: 1228: 1019: 906: 842: 253: 4048: 4037: 3767: 2970: 2911:

is to retain it (not one of the disputants), I am going to revert the request in 24 hours.

2146: 1784:

Thanks in advance, an anonymous editor (signing with five "~"s), 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1690: 1573: 1507: 1056:

further debate about the validity of this POV warriors imaginations, is a waste of time. --

810: 729: 516: 3385: 2341: 1385: 1119:

Oh. Well then, the cabal case overrules a 3O. I'm going to remove the request for a 3O. —

711: 574: 541: 458: 4235: 3699: 3695: 3368: 3169: 2201: 2177: 1902: 1778: 806: 3923:

Talk:Charles Darwin#Natural Selection never seen as the primary explanation of evolution

3358:

concerns over these edits? (For convenience: link to the combined diff of the 4 edits:

2796:

I note that you are keeping an eye on the talk page of the article where the dispute is.

2575: 1826:

I removed this dispute and provided an opinion on what I believe was actually disputed.

418: 4221: 4015: 3977: 3953: 3326: 3245: 3127: 2010: 1921: 1831: 1726: 1635: 1561: 922: 734: 660: 439: 4036:

of the 3O Project. There are only two things that makes the 3O Project different from

2793:, that does not mean that this is what project talk pages are supposed to be used for. 2267:...and this all seems to be in the wrong spot. Sorry, followed Revrant here. *blush* 293: 3468: 2978: 2939:

OK, Sorry if I have wasted your Time... Where can I get help for something like this?

2675:

I agree that I should have informed Rico of this thread, so for that, I apologize. —

2389: 2182: 2154: 1976: 1404: 1253:-Veersion of Avery_player2011 vs Version of Michael herc. 00:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) 1148: 1106: 1057: 1015: 506: 351: 314: 189: 143: 128: 116: 4190: 3509: 2620:

I agree that it would have been better for Hello to inform Rico about this posting.

2268: 2254: 2235: 2219: 2205: 2169: 2131: 2106: 2067: 1850: 1622:

RegentsPark and HelloAnnyong gave excellent responses, I just want to add that the

1356: 1308: 996: 860: 683: 589: 2965:

If a third opinion will be unwelcome, consider the other processes described at

2557:

How ironic that after reverting a dispute I added three times within 20 minutes,

1701: 1101:

a Cabal Case at the same time - anything force his POV into the article... see:

1094: 1041: 978: 972: 964: 292:

Unsure, but I think that there should be something that visibly denotes it as a

249: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3689: 2742:

I'm trying to disengage. I will say, however, that I started this thread after

1896: 1700:

Maybe WP should acknowledge its vulnerability to hijacking of POV cotteries? --

3523:

No, there was no third opinion given. The request had been removed by someone

3363: 3911:

dispute, article has been protected while they work it out - 4 items in list)

3018: 2899:

Re: Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement#Please keep the article High quality

2197: 1917: 1827: 1722: 1557: 2799:

You don't appear to be "trying to disengage." You appear to be engaged. --

428: 2974: 2003: 1972: 659:

is a recent example). I think the second sentence should be removed. —

2538:

The dispute is whether to inject industry propaganda in the article. --

1380: 423: 187:

We might even want to think about creating some 3O specific templates?

2746:

with Athaenara, one of the admins who keeps an eye on this project. —

2123:

World of Warcraft is the most popular MMORPG in the world with nearly

3925:

involves 7 or more editors, not suitable for WP:3O - 3 items in list)

2623:

I understand both of you are frustrated, conflict is always painful.

1999: 790:

My final observation is that most 3Os start in a similar way. A bold

2168:

Oh, I see now that the dispute now seems to be between yourself and

1655:

invite the 3O editor to review their opinion and/or comment further,

349:

BTW: I gave em both a Half Barnstar, thanks for the suggestion! :-)

4172:

Yes, of course, always the status quo trumps civility. Good-bye. --

2314:

The reason that I bring this up here is because now RicoCorinth is

2253:, you see clear support in the source. You don't need me to agree. 2180:

so that third parties can assess the situation neutrally. Regards,

1192:

I was reading over the recently added item regarding discussion on

1768:

Talk:International Baccalaureate#Propose Moving Programmes Section

1303: 3698:

request has been removed from the list of active disputes at the

2789:

If two editors agree that a project talk page should be used for

4032:

to this extent: The two editors guideline is fundamental to the

3240:

Lovely job on the template, but why "cabalists"? WP:3O isn't a

2369: 814:

please continue a constructive debate. Signature, date and time

2293:

In case anyone wasn't watching, I just had a little spat with

1030: 25: 2111:

http://gamers.guinnessworldrecords.com/records/pc_gaming.aspx

655:

More often than not, an additional response is a good thing (

296:

barnstar (informal mediation rules!) and be oriented towards

2066:, the tag at the top of the page was just removed by an IP. 1103:

Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-27/Carabinieri

2113:

seen here, into the article, insisting that the wording be

1661:

raise a RFC for wider comment from the wikipedia community.

1173:

Is it normally this busy? WP:3O requests a week old? Phew!

1022:

aptly observed; sources for this claim: a page listing the

4297: 4245: 4091: 4065:, to which I give a link in all the opinions which I give. 3811: 3732: 3641: 3552: 3410: 3332: 3321:

I note on Amelioration's user page that he was previously

3294: 3215: 3180: 3075: 3028: 2914: 822:

In fact, I might try and create it now, in my user space!

103:

Any 3O barnstars we can award both parties for compromise?

2574:

I note also that you've been talked to about this before.

1630:

and, for a bird's-eye view of the broader dispute scene,

1427:

Dissagreement about the definition of the Horn of Africa.

111:

and wanted to see if there were any barnstars available?

3884:

Talk:Lord British#Sudden deletion of half of the article

1551:

What to do if a third opinion does not resolve the issue

3916: 3898: 3873: 3847: 3667: 3527:

before TransporterMan. Then it was put back and I gave

3448: 3359: 3285: 3280: 3275: 3270: 3061: 2904:

I propose that the request be removed as inappropriate.

2797: 2562: 2560: 2558: 2319: 2315: 2308: 2173: 1458: 1299: 1051: 1048: 1045: 991: 988: 985: 642: 638: 3447:, lowly filth of an outsider to the project, gave one. 2037:

And the Podzilla article isn't even up for deletion...

3438:

Rename project to indicate its hostility to outsiders

3244:, it's a volunteer project with no secret agenda. — 1624:

Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2009-07-13/Discussion report

890:}} if anyone wants to look at it / comment / use it. 1457:

to discuss your edits. As a side note, Midday undid

1403:. 3O is for when only two editors are in a dispute. 555:

How to encourage removing listings before responding

310:"the goal always is to create a better encyclopedia" 3053:

3O request on page fully protected for edit warring

1035:

that doesn't mention the things he wishes to insert

4053:neither are we forced to include (i.e. not remove) 3017:Removal proposal fails for lack of consensus, see 984:edits like these show that he came with an agenda 538:Request for comment on content dispute resolution 532:Request for comment on content dispute resolution 3210:{{subst:The Third Opinion Award|message ~~~~}} 2289:User:RicoCorinth reported by User:HelloAnnyong 1770:we've got a non-standard 3O situation, where 8: 4311: 4259: 4105: 4014:at any time, I both agree and disagree with 3952:is not permanently alienated from WP:3O. — 3825: 3746: 3655: 3566: 3545:We're glad you're here and want you to stay. 3424: 3346: 3308: 3258:Changes by User Amelioration to project page 3229: 3194: 3089: 3042: 2928: 724:I agree with GreenGourd. This isn't called 3069:No other active dispute resolution process: 1905:(Disagreement on standard reference format) 3060:has been fully protected for edit warring 975:for not notifying me about this Cabal Case 635:Proposed changes to 3O layout and wording 3105:and try to get someone to mediate it. — 2907:specific edits. Unless the consensus of 2204:my limited search skills are turning up. 2109:will not allow wording from the source, 1916:which comprehensibly covers this issue.— 1842:Handy template for giving third opinions 1788:I left a note on the talk page there. — 3909:Talk:Seal hunting#Introduction - EU ban 2080:Ah, okay. Struck part of my comment. — 805:- a third opinion was requested at the 3158: 1024:Military Operations of the Carabinieri 774:Some background first. The example of 623:That line originally read as follows: 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3972:I couldn't agree more. There exists 3067:A second question: The 3O FAQ says, " 2582:I've never been legitimately blocked. 1777:Failing that, an alternative form of 7: 573:What do others think? Happy 3Oing! 473:comment added 22:16, April 27, 2009. 3907:Active disagreements: 5 or more in 3291:What does everyone think? Regards, 2368:that disengaged (leaving it on the 645:) and a second sentence was added: 633:In early August 2007 (see archived 4224:— first opinion: December 25, 2006 3058:Talk:Kabul Province#NPS tribal map 1691:WP:ANI#Refusal to engage arguments 1425:Talk:Horn_of_Africa# List Clean-up 637:discussion) the page was changed ( 410:There's ⁂ (subtle, but can be big 24: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion 811:wikipedia policies and guidelines 4230:— first opinion: October 6, 2006 3688: 3159: 2786:Trying to disengage by engaging. 2172:over the inclusion of the words 1895: 1026:... the conclusion is all his... 948:User:Bigger digger/doing3Oheader 798:{{doing30|~~~~}} which produces 427: 422: 417: 29: 4126:19:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4063:statement of personal standards 3966:Addendum: IP69.226.103.13 said 3711:334993745 —{{subst:signature}} 2943:10:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 1201: 997:a 3 year gap in his campaign... 776:Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion 657:Talk:Eddie Albert#Third Opinion 4290:Thanks again for the kudo and 4218:— first opinion: June 18, 2007 3325:, a 3O Wikipedian whom I have 2791:requests for comments on users 2709:requests for comments on users 2364:I would point out that it was 2277:09:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2263:09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2244:09:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2228:08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2214:08:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2192:08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2164:08:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 2140:08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 1097:filed a Third opinion request 1029:his referencing is ridiculous 384:15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 356:02:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 319:02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 264:01:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 224:01:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 194:00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 171:15:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 148:15:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 137:05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 121:05:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 1: 4317:20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4286:20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4265:19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4206:Auld Lang Syne 3O Wikipedians 4196:19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4178:19:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4173: 4164:19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 4121: 4111:16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 3996:09:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 3984:03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 3960:03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) 3866:Talk:Iran (word) #recent edit 3831:22:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3804:22:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3752:22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3661:22:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3621:22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3597:22:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3572:22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3515:22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3496:22:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3477:22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3462:21:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC) 3430:22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 3394:20:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 3372:20:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 3352:20:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 3314:19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) 3252:20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 3048:14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 3008:16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 2983:11:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 2934:06:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC) 2092:21:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 2076:20:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 2051:20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 2029:20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC) 1003:edits the Carabinieri article 402:02:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 161:interesting point, Fr33kman. 127:barnstars for their efforts. 3235:19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 3200:19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 3136:20:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 3117:16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 3095:16:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 2893:17:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2876:17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2823:17:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2806:17:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2758:16:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2718:16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC) 2687:22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2659:21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2639:21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2617:, that you simply disagreed. 2606:21:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2545:22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2500:21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2472:21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2445:21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2426:21:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2405:21:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2379:21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2356:21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2334:20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 2119:for the most popular MMORPG. 1632:Knowledge (XXG):Coordination 641:) from the previous format ( 540:which could be of interest. 438:has over 900 barnstars.) — 4274:for their contributions. — 3145:Third Opinion Award created 1986:PODS (company) and PODZILLA 1912:Please see the guidance of 1012:Italian resistance movement 312:, that says it all for me! 4335: 3868:dispute - 3 items in list) 3402:It's not so much that I'm 941:User:Bigger digger/doing3O 888:User:Bigger digger/doing3O 498:02:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC) 436:Commons:Category:Barnstars 3327:encountered and supported 3165: 2486:Talk:An article somewhere 1981:22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC) 1962:06:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 1943:05:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 1926:05:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 1882:02:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC) 1866:13:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 1836:00:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 1821:00:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 1800:16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 1731:09:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 1710:20:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 1676:16:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC) 1642:14:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 1610:13:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 1589:12:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 1566:09:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC) 1546:23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 1526:04:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 1502:00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC) 1365:15:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 1350:15:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 1334:15:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 1317:14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) 1239:22:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 1221:22:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC) 2062:The PODZILLA article is 1473:17:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 1448:16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 1413:21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 1394:20:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 1307:place for this question. 1289:14:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC) 1183:14:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1157:14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1131:14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1115:14:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1085:14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1066:14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 955:17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 931:16:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 917:15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 900:13:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 869:02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 851:15:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 835:11:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 760:12:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 743:04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 720:04:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 692:22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 667:20:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 617:04:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 598:03:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 583:03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC) 446:19:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC) 4240:The Third Opinion Award 3170:The Third Opinion Award 3151:The Third Opinion Award 2152:be an option. Regards, 1806:Dispute #9 is incorrect 1686:Talk:Martin Luther King 1194:Talk:Noida ATS Shootout 995:interestingly there is 550:23:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 524:00:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC) 306:civility under pressure 4242:. Regards and thanks, 4082: 3971: 3934:A couple of comments: 3856:Active disagreements: 2125:10 million subscribers 825:Sorry for the ramble! 4076: 3967: 3700:Third Opinion Project 3579:Then the request was 2967:WP:Dispute resolution 2590:-inspired canvassing. 2316:giving third opinions 2117:Guinness World Record 1952:Much nicer! Cheers, 1903:third opinion request 1093:nope - the point is: 886:I've created {{subst: 42:of past discussions. 4292:done re Amorymeltzer 3882:gave 3rd opinion on 3768:mean it for the best 2567:would be describing 1188:Removing !3O entries 1628:content noticeboard 1455:Talk:Horn of Africa 882:template discussion 730:Request for Comment 109:Talk:Medical degree 4176: 4124: 3886:- 2 items in list) 2909:third opinionators 1746:Ghosts&empties 1245:Deford, MI Dispute 855:And my apologies, 452:Why no signatures? 248:How about Rodin's 4194: 4174: 4147: 4133:comment added by 4122: 3994: 3927: 3913: 3888: 3870: 3801: 3773: 3764: 3720: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3513: 3205: 3204: 3023:article talk page 2949:comment added by 2881:Done and done. — 2873: 2844: 2498: 2495:sticks and stones 2461:The mess left is 2127:around the world. 2102:World of Warcraft 2019:comment added by 1931: 1930: 1758: 1744:comment added by 1587: 1584:sticks and stones 1348: 1345:sticks and stones 1332: 1329:sticks and stones 1274: 1260:comment added by 1237: 1234:sticks and stones 1218: 915: 849: 781:Talk:Rangers F.C. 500: 354: 317: 262: 259:count the magpies 192: 146: 119: 107:Hiya, working on 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4326: 4313: 4306: 4305: 4301: 4282: 4279: 4261: 4254: 4253: 4249: 4193: 4177: 4160: 4157: 4146: 4127: 4125: 4107: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4003:A few comments: 3993: 3919: 3901: 3880:Peregrine Fisher 3876: 3850: 3827: 3820: 3819: 3815: 3802: 3797: 3791: 3785: 3779: 3777: 3771: 3758: 3748: 3741: 3740: 3736: 3692: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3680: 3670: 3657: 3650: 3649: 3645: 3617: 3614: 3568: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3512: 3492: 3489: 3426: 3419: 3418: 3414: 3407:"FYI." Regards, 3370: 3366: 3348: 3341: 3340: 3336: 3310: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3231: 3224: 3223: 3219: 3196: 3189: 3188: 3184: 3163: 3156: 3155: 3113: 3110: 3091: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3044: 3037: 3036: 3032: 2969:, these include 2958: 2930: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2889: 2886: 2874: 2869: 2863: 2857: 2851: 2849: 2842: 2819: 2816: 2803: 2754: 2751: 2715: 2683: 2680: 2656: 2636: 2603: 2542: 2492: 2469: 2442: 2422: 2419: 2399: 2394: 2376: 2330: 2327: 2185: 2174:"by subscribers" 2157: 2088: 2085: 2047: 2044: 2031: 1996:United Van Lines 1899: 1892: 1891: 1855: 1849: 1796: 1793: 1757: 1738: 1606: 1603: 1581: 1522: 1519: 1469: 1466: 1399:Suggest you try 1342: 1326: 1273: 1254: 1231: 1219: 1202: 1200: 1127: 1124: 1081: 1078: 1020:user:Jim Sweeney 909: 845: 756: 753: 613: 610: 519: 514: 509: 496: 489: 487:Scheinwerfermann 474: 461: 431: 426: 421: 350: 313: 256: 188: 142: 115: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4303: 4299: 4280: 4277: 4251: 4247: 4208: 4175:IP69.226.103.13 4158: 4155: 4135:IP69.226.103.13 4128: 4123:IP69.226.103.13 4097: 4093: 4018:when she says, 3950:IP69.226.103.13 3817: 3813: 3795: 3789: 3783: 3778: 3775: 3738: 3734: 3666: 3647: 3643: 3615: 3612: 3589:IP69.226.103.13 3558: 3554: 3490: 3487: 3454:IP69.226.103.13 3440: 3416: 3412: 3392: 3364: 3362: 3338: 3334: 3300: 3296: 3260: 3221: 3217: 3186: 3182: 3147: 3111: 3108: 3081: 3077: 3055: 3034: 3030: 2997:proposing party 2944: 2941:proposing party 2920: 2916: 2901: 2887: 2884: 2867: 2861: 2855: 2850: 2847: 2817: 2814: 2801: 2752: 2749: 2713: 2681: 2678: 2654: 2634: 2601: 2540: 2467: 2440: 2420: 2417: 2395: 2390: 2374: 2328: 2325: 2291: 2181: 2153: 2104: 2086: 2083: 2064:up for deletion 2045: 2042: 2021:168.215.154.165 2014: 1988: 1853: 1847: 1844: 1808: 1794: 1791: 1764: 1762:Odd request...! 1739: 1604: 1601: 1553: 1520: 1517: 1467: 1464: 1421: 1377: 1338:(I fixed it. -- 1296: 1255: 1247: 1198: 1190: 1171: 1125: 1122: 1079: 1076: 968: 884: 754: 751: 611: 608: 557: 534: 517: 512: 507: 495: 485: 468: 459: 454: 413: 394:Alastair Haines 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4332: 4330: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4232: 4231: 4225: 4219: 4207: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4167: 4166: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4067: 4066: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4041: 4023: 4022: 4011: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3998: 3963: 3962: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3938: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3914: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3871: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3833: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3718: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3705: 3704: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3663: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3532: 3531:third opinion. 3518: 3517: 3499: 3498: 3480: 3479: 3439: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3397: 3396: 3388: 3375: 3374: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3278: 3273: 3266: 3259: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3211: 3203: 3202: 3174: 3173: 3166: 3164: 3146: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3120: 3119: 3054: 3051: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2960: 2959: 2951:92.229.208.237 2900: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2794: 2787: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2621: 2618: 2611: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2583: 2580: 2577: 2572: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2517: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2459: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2408: 2407: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2359: 2358: 2320:agreed with me 2290: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2265: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2115:and holds the 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2054: 2053: 2011:PODS (company) 1992:Laestrygonian3 1987: 1984: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1929: 1928: 1909: 1908: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1843: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1807: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1763: 1760: 1734: 1733: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1698: 1694: 1679: 1678: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1659: 1656: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1592: 1591: 1552: 1549: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1476: 1475: 1431: 1430: 1420: 1419:Horn of Africa 1417: 1416: 1415: 1376: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1295: 1292: 1276: 1275: 1262:Emily Bernette 1246: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1189: 1186: 1170: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1088: 1087: 1069: 1068: 1054: 1038: 1027: 1008: 1004: 993: 982: 976: 967: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 953: 952: 951: 944: 883: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 816: 815: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 745: 697: 696: 695: 694: 676: 675: 674: 673: 652: 651: 650: 649: 630: 629: 628: 627: 620: 619: 601: 600: 556: 553: 533: 530: 529: 528: 527: 526: 491: 453: 450: 449: 448: 432: 415: 411: 407: 406: 405: 404: 387: 386: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 269: 268: 267: 266: 235: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 197: 196: 178: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 153: 152: 151: 150: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4331: 4318: 4314: 4308: 4307: 4293: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4284: 4283: 4273: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4262: 4256: 4255: 4241: 4237: 4229: 4228:Seraphimblade 4226: 4223: 4220: 4217: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4205: 4197: 4192: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4161: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4132: 4117: 4113: 4112: 4108: 4102: 4101: 4081: 4080: 4073: 4069: 4068: 4064: 4059: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4039: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4017: 4012: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3997: 3992: 3991:Seraphimblade 3987: 3986: 3985: 3982: 3979: 3975: 3970: 3965: 3964: 3961: 3958: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3946: 3939: 3936: 3935: 3933: 3932: 3926: 3924: 3918: 3915: 3912: 3910: 3906: 3900: 3897: 3896: 3894: 3893: 3887: 3885: 3881: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3867: 3863: 3859: 3855: 3849: 3846: 3845: 3842: 3841: 3832: 3828: 3822: 3821: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3800: 3798: 3792: 3786: 3769: 3762: 3761:edit conflict 3757: 3753: 3749: 3743: 3742: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3710: 3707: 3706: 3703: 3701: 3697: 3696:Third Opinion 3691: 3687: 3686: 3683: 3682: 3669: 3664: 3662: 3658: 3652: 3651: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3622: 3619: 3618: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3569: 3563: 3562: 3547: 3546: 3540: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3516: 3511: 3506: 3501: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3482: 3481: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3437: 3431: 3427: 3421: 3420: 3405: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3367: 3360: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3343: 3342: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3315: 3311: 3305: 3304: 3287: 3286:Fourth Change 3284: 3282: 3279: 3277: 3276:Second Change 3274: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3264: 3257: 3253: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3232: 3226: 3225: 3209: 3201: 3197: 3191: 3190: 3176: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3167: 3162: 3157: 3154: 3152: 3149:I've created 3144: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3118: 3115: 3114: 3104: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3086: 3085: 3070: 3065: 3063: 3059: 3052: 3050: 3049: 3045: 3039: 3038: 3024: 3021:objection at 3020: 3009: 3005: 3001: 3000:78.55.200.244 2998: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2942: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2931: 2925: 2924: 2910: 2905: 2898: 2894: 2891: 2890: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2872: 2870: 2864: 2858: 2824: 2821: 2820: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2804: 2798: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2745: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2719: 2716: 2710: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2688: 2685: 2684: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2660: 2657: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2640: 2637: 2631: 2625: 2624: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2615:wp:good faith 2612: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2604: 2598: 2595: 2592: 2589: 2584: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2563: 2561: 2559: 2556: 2555: 2546: 2543: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2528:universities. 2526: 2522: 2518: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2501: 2496: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2473: 2470: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2446: 2443: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2427: 2424: 2423: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2393: 2386: 2385: 2380: 2377: 2371: 2370:Wrong Version 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2348: 2345: 2344: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2331: 2321: 2317: 2312: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2296: 2288: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2126: 2120: 2118: 2112: 2108: 2101: 2093: 2090: 2089: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2048: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2012: 2007: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1985: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910: 1906: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1852: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1818: 1814: 1813:Amadscientist 1805: 1801: 1798: 1797: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1782: 1780: 1775: 1773: 1769: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1692: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1657: 1654: 1653: 1651: 1650: 1643: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1590: 1585: 1580: 1575: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1550: 1548: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1471: 1470: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1435: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1374: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1353: 1351: 1346: 1341: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1301: 1293: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1252: 1249: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1195: 1187: 1185: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1175:Bigger digger 1168: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1071: 1070: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1052: 1049: 1046: 1043: 1039: 1036: 1032: 1031:i.e this blog 1028: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1016:Mount Everest 1013: 1009: 1005: 1002: 998: 994: 992: 989: 986: 983: 980: 977: 974: 970: 969: 966: 963: 954: 949: 945: 942: 938: 937: 934: 933: 932: 928: 924: 920: 919: 918: 913: 912:My narrowboat 908: 904: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 892:Bigger digger 889: 881: 872: 871: 870: 866: 862: 858: 857:Bigger digger 854: 853: 852: 848: 844: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 827:Bigger digger 823: 820: 812: 808: 804: 801: 800: 799: 795: 793: 792:Third opinion 788: 784: 782: 777: 772: 761: 758: 757: 746: 744: 740: 736: 731: 727: 723: 722: 721: 717: 713: 708: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 693: 689: 685: 680: 679: 678: 677: 670: 669: 668: 665: 662: 658: 654: 653: 647: 646: 644: 640: 636: 632: 631: 625: 624: 622: 621: 618: 615: 614: 603: 602: 599: 595: 591: 587: 586: 585: 584: 580: 576: 572: 567: 563: 554: 552: 551: 547: 543: 539: 531: 525: 522: 521: 520: 515: 510: 502: 501: 499: 494: 488: 482: 477: 476: 475: 472: 466: 462: 451: 447: 444: 441: 437: 433: 430: 425: 420: 416: 414:). Or these: 409: 408: 403: 399: 395: 391: 390: 389: 388: 385: 381: 377: 373: 372: 357: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 342: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 320: 316: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 265: 260: 255: 251: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 225: 221: 217: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 195: 191: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 172: 168: 164: 159: 158: 157: 156: 155: 154: 149: 145: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 125: 124: 123: 122: 118: 114: 113:My 3O logbook 110: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4296: 4276: 4272:Amorymeltzer 4244: 4233: 4216:HelloAnnyong 4209: 4154: 4118: 4114: 4090: 4087: 4078: 4077: 4071: 4052: 4044: 4033: 4029: 4019: 4002: 3973: 3968: 3920: 3902: 3877: 3851: 3810: 3780: 3731: 3708: 3694:Your recent 3693: 3640: 3611: 3584: 3580: 3551: 3544: 3543: 3538: 3536: 3528: 3524: 3504: 3486: 3451: 3444: 3441: 3409: 3403: 3380: 3331: 3322: 3318: 3317: 3293: 3290: 3281:Third Change 3271:First Change 3263:Amelioration 3261: 3214: 3207: 3206: 3179: 3168: 3148: 3107: 3074: 3068: 3066: 3056: 3027: 3016: 2996: 2940: 2913: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2883: 2852: 2841: 2813: 2748: 2744:a discussion 2677: 2571:as unworthy. 2568: 2564: 2520: 2462: 2416: 2396: 2391: 2365: 2342: 2324: 2313: 2301: 2292: 2170:User:Sinneed 2149: 2124: 2122: 2114: 2107:User:Sinneed 2105: 2082: 2059: 2041: 2036: 2008: 1989: 1970: 1932: 1901:Response to 1900: 1845: 1809: 1790: 1783: 1776: 1771: 1765: 1735: 1626:links a new 1600: 1554: 1534: 1516: 1463: 1436: 1432: 1378: 1297: 1277: 1203: 1191: 1172: 1121: 1098: 1075: 1000: 885: 824: 821: 817: 807:project page 803:Third Opinon 802: 796: 791: 789: 785: 773: 770: 750: 706: 643:version link 639:version link 607: 570: 565: 561: 558: 535: 505: 504: 480: 455: 376:Lazulilasher 309: 305: 301: 297: 254:Regents Park 216:Lazulilasher 163:Lazulilasher 106: 75: 43: 37: 4129:—Preceding 4034:very nature 3858:Warrior4321 2945:—Preceding 2490:RegentsPark 2295:RicoCorinth 2015:—Preceding 1740:—Preceding 1579:RegentsPark 1340:RegentsPark 1324:RegentsPark 1256:—Preceding 1229:RegentsPark 1095:User:Bibiki 1042:User:Bibiki 979:User:Bibiki 973:User:Bibiki 965:Carabinieri 907:RegentsPark 843:Askari Mark 469:—Preceding 298:cooperation 250:The Thinker 36:This is an 4300:RANSPORTER 4248:RANSPORTER 4094:RANSPORTER 3814:RANSPORTER 3735:RANSPORTER 3644:RANSPORTER 3555:RANSPORTER 3413:RANSPORTER 3386:Mildly Mad 3335:RANSPORTER 3297:RANSPORTER 3218:RANSPORTER 3183:RANSPORTER 3078:RANSPORTER 3031:RANSPORTER 2917:RANSPORTER 2343:Finn Casey 1386:Osprey9713 1355:Thank you! 1300:3O request 712:GreenGourd 575:GreenGourd 542:PhilKnight 536:There's a 460:Goochelaar 302:compromise 95:Archive 10 4222:Athaenara 4016:Athaenara 3978:Athaenara 3954:Athaenara 3862:Dbachmann 3729:Regards, 3581:fulfilled 3404:concerned 3323:Matheuler 3246:Athaenara 3212:Regards, 3128:Ketabtoon 3103:WP:MEDCAB 2588:WP:BATTLE 2532:disputed. 2269:- Sinneed 2255:- Sinneed 2236:- Sinneed 2206:- Sinneed 2198:Runescape 2009:With the 1990:The user 1636:Athaenara 1512:consensus 1459:this edit 1401:WP:MEDCAB 923:ThaddeusB 735:ThaddeusB 661:Athaenara 440:Athaenara 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4143:contribs 4131:unsigned 4030:disagree 3941:exclude. 3668:modified 3585:declined 3469:Jclemens 2947:unsigned 2305:contribs 2251:wp:SYNTH 2183:decltype 2155:decltype 2017:unsigned 2004:PODZILLA 1766:Over at 1754:contribs 1742:unsigned 1405:Jclemens 1270:contribs 1258:unsigned 1214:contribs 1149:noclador 1107:noclador 1058:noclador 1033:or this 946:{{subst: 939:{{subst: 352:Fr33kman 315:Fr33kman 190:Fr33kman 144:Fr33kman 129:Jclemens 117:Fr33kman 4281:Annyong 4191:Chillum 4159:Annyong 3948:I hope 3709:Reason: 3616:Annyong 3510:Chillum 3505:request 3491:Annyong 3208:Syntax: 3112:Annyong 2888:Annyong 2818:Annyong 2753:Annyong 2682:Annyong 2635:Sinneed 2421:Annyong 2329:Annyong 2220:Revrant 2132:Revrant 2087:Annyong 2068:TheoloJ 2046:Annyong 1914:WP:CITE 1795:Annyong 1605:Annyong 1538:Liban80 1521:Annyong 1494:Liban80 1468:Annyong 1440:Liban80 1381:Rapture 1375:Rapture 1294:Inquiry 1126:Annyong 1080:Annyong 999:and he 971:thanks 861:Mishlai 755:Annyong 684:Mishlai 612:Annyong 590:Mishlai 471:undated 39:archive 3921:( ... 3878:( ... 3860:& 3062:(diff) 2971:WP:WQA 2372:). -- 2147:WP:RFC 2000:U-Haul 1954:Blippy 1935:Teahot 1874:Blippy 1858:Teahot 1719:Teahot 1702:Jonund 1668:Teahot 1574:WP:RFC 1508:WP:RFC 1281:Blippy 1147:Ok, -- 1007:exist) 847:(Talk) 566:before 4278:Hello 4236:WP:3O 4156:Hello 4072:avoid 4045:agree 3864:took 3776:Amory 3665:I've 3613:Hello 3488:Hello 3242:cabal 3109:Hello 2885:Hello 2848:Amory 2843:(out) 2815:Hello 2750:Hello 2711:. -- 2679:Hello 2521:still 2458:time. 2418:Hello 2326:Hello 2202:wp:RS 2178:WP:3O 2084:Hello 2060:Note: 2043:Hello 1792:Hello 1779:WP:DR 1634:. — 1602:Hello 1518:Hello 1465:Hello 1357:radek 1309:radek 1304:Birze 1199:Amory 1169:Busy? 1123:Hello 1077:Hello 752:Hello 726:WP:40 609:Hello 508:fr33k 16:< 4312:TALK 4260:TALK 4139:talk 4106:TALK 3917:diff 3899:diff 3874:diff 3848:diff 3826:TALK 3747:TALK 3656:TALK 3593:talk 3583:not 3567:TALK 3539:gave 3525:else 3473:talk 3458:talk 3425:TALK 3381:will 3361:) — 3347:TALK 3319:P.S. 3309:TALK 3230:TALK 3195:TALK 3132:talk 3090:TALK 3043:TALK 3019:Bwrs 3004:talk 2979:talk 2955:talk 2929:TALK 2802:Rico 2714:Rico 2655:Rico 2602:Rico 2541:Rico 2468:Rico 2441:Rico 2392:Cycl 2375:Rico 2309:here 2299:talk 2273:talk 2259:talk 2240:talk 2224:talk 2210:talk 2188:talk 2160:talk 2136:talk 2072:talk 2025:talk 1998:and 1977:talk 1958:talk 1939:talk 1922:talk 1918:Test 1878:talk 1862:talk 1832:talk 1828:Huon 1817:talk 1772:four 1750:talk 1727:talk 1723:Hm2k 1706:talk 1672:talk 1562:talk 1558:Hm2k 1542:talk 1514:. — 1498:talk 1444:talk 1409:talk 1390:talk 1379:The 1361:talk 1313:talk 1302:for 1285:talk 1266:talk 1210:talk 1206:user 1179:talk 1153:talk 1111:talk 1105:, -- 1062:talk 1001:only 927:talk 896:talk 865:talk 831:talk 739:talk 716:talk 688:talk 594:talk 579:talk 546:talk 465:talk 398:talk 380:talk 294:WP:3 220:talk 167:talk 133:talk 4049:IAR 4038:RFC 3770:. 2975:Ash 2565:you 2463:not 2397:pia 2150:may 1973:Ash 1851:3OR 1429:]]] 1099:and 1018:as 707:may 518:-s- 513:man 304:or 300:or 252:?-- 4315:) 4304:AN 4294:. 4263:) 4252:AN 4145:) 4141:• 4109:) 4098:AN 4043:I 4028:I 3981:✉ 3974:no 3957:✉ 3829:) 3818:AN 3793:• 3787:• 3774:~ 3750:) 3739:AN 3716:. 3659:) 3648:AN 3595:) 3570:) 3559:AN 3475:) 3460:) 3428:) 3417:AN 3365:æk 3350:) 3339:AN 3329:. 3312:) 3301:AN 3249:✉ 3233:) 3222:AN 3198:) 3187:AN 3134:) 3093:) 3082:AN 3046:) 3035:AN 3025:. 3006:) 2981:) 2973:.— 2957:) 2932:) 2921:AN 2865:• 2859:• 2569:me 2401:- 2366:me 2275:) 2261:) 2242:) 2226:) 2212:) 2190:) 2162:) 2138:) 2074:) 2039:— 2027:) 1979:) 1960:) 1941:) 1924:) 1907:: 1880:) 1864:) 1854:}} 1848:{{ 1834:) 1819:) 1756:) 1752:• 1729:) 1708:) 1674:) 1639:✉ 1564:) 1544:) 1500:) 1446:) 1411:) 1392:) 1363:) 1352:) 1315:) 1287:) 1272:) 1268:• 1227:-- 1212:• 1208:• 1181:) 1155:) 1113:) 1064:) 1050:, 1047:, 990:, 987:, 950:}} 943:}} 929:) 898:) 867:) 833:) 741:) 733:-- 718:) 690:) 664:✉ 596:) 581:) 548:) 481:or 467:) 443:✉ 412:⁂ 400:) 382:) 222:) 169:) 135:) 91:→ 4309:( 4302:M 4298:T 4257:( 4250:M 4246:T 4137:( 4103:( 4096:M 4092:T 4055:. 3905:→ 3903:( 3854:→ 3852:( 3823:( 3816:M 3812:T 3799:) 3796:c 3790:t 3784:u 3781:( 3763:) 3759:( 3744:( 3737:M 3733:T 3702:: 3653:( 3646:M 3642:T 3591:( 3564:( 3557:M 3553:T 3529:a 3471:( 3456:( 3445:I 3422:( 3415:M 3411:T 3390:C 3344:( 3337:M 3333:T 3306:( 3299:M 3295:T 3227:( 3220:M 3216:T 3192:( 3185:M 3181:T 3138:) 3130:( 3087:( 3080:M 3076:T 3040:( 3033:M 3029:T 3002:( 2977:( 2953:( 2926:( 2919:M 2915:T 2871:) 2868:c 2862:t 2856:u 2853:( 2627:) 2497:) 2493:( 2353:* 2350:* 2347:* 2302:· 2297:( 2271:( 2257:( 2238:( 2222:( 2208:( 2186:( 2158:( 2134:( 2070:( 2023:( 1975:( 1956:( 1937:( 1933:— 1920:( 1876:( 1860:( 1830:( 1815:( 1748:( 1725:( 1704:( 1693:. 1670:( 1666:— 1586:) 1582:( 1560:( 1540:( 1496:( 1442:( 1407:( 1388:( 1359:( 1347:) 1343:( 1331:) 1327:( 1311:( 1283:( 1264:( 1236:) 1232:( 1216:) 1204:( 1177:( 1151:( 1109:( 1060:( 1053:) 925:( 914:) 910:( 894:( 863:( 829:( 737:( 714:( 686:( 592:( 577:( 544:( 493:C 490:· 484:— 463:( 434:( 396:( 378:( 261:) 257:( 218:( 165:( 131:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Third opinion/Archive 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index