335:
he or she appears to have no recourse: since the first party is presumed (often falsely) to have followed the instructions to describe the dispute neutrally, the second party is not allowed to point out any facts the first editor left out or any different viewpoint on the matter. The second editor is either blindsided or left with nothing to do but merely hope that whoever steps in to give a "third opinion" actually takes the time to review the dispute in detail and glean from what could be a complicated history of the dispute the viewpoint of the second editor, which he has been barred from giving directly by the decisions of the first editor. These seem like structural flaws of the current set-up that severely limit its ability to resolve rather than exacerbate disputes. --
635:. Kosovo is administered by and interim UN administration, according to that Resolution. The current version of the introduction in the article is consistent, and refers to the current facts on the ground. The compromise on that version was reached after a couple of months of negotiating of parties involved in the dispute, until the user above re-started inserting his pushy POV. Third opinion on this would be appreciated. It is advisable to followo the talk page on the article, where the discussion on the introduction part took place, to get a better picture of the dispute. Thanks in advance,
2582:
the third opinion has been given). I feel that everyone should remove the listing as soon as they pick it up, even if things aren't totally settled (whether because you're waiting for the parties to fill in the template or you think you may need to go back and clarify what you've said), as the dispute no longer needs the attention of another third opiner. It's a bit of a pain to look at the active disagreements, click on one, and find it's already halfway to being sorted out. Would anyone object to me modifying the instructions to this effect? --
1026:
on her current professional role, information on her spouse, parents, and minor children (including the names of both), along with a succession box, a photo, nine categories, and even information on her professional travel schedule (she lives in
Florida but periodically commutes to New York City, in case anyone cares). If this is a stub, the vast majority of bios on wikipedia would be deemed stubs. And nothing prevents further additions, as needed. But this is not a stub, and it would be helpful if user
1811:: "I'm having increasing difficulty taking either of you seriously. You said in your edit summary that I should stop removing this entire section. Unfortunately, if you had actually looked at my edit, you would have seen I removed a single sentence, not the multiple paragraphs that make up that section. The entire issue over whether the entries need to be neutral has not previously been discussed. I also now have the admission from HighInBC that he did not look at my previous edits. KazakhPol
2925:
third opiner to wait for the involved parties to reply. It could also halt proceedings entirely if someone was looking for a third opinion to consolidate their position against a user who will not participate in discussion. Nonetheless, I think third opiners should be free to use the template if they wish, especially in the more complicated disputes, or where discussion is on user talk pages, although I personally haven't been and won't be using it. --
3699:
31:
3258:, but I think the spirit of the idea is applicable here (call the process "consensus-building"). I, personally, am steadfast against the template idea (though I grant the possibility of some unexpectedly persuasive argument being presented by Jossi), and I don't see anyone else budging on this issue, either. From the very beginning, the template has had a lone supporter--its creator--and this does not appear to be changing.
2276:
3607:
and I'm wondering if that means I should recuse myself? If not, can I simply post my opinion on the matter without a formal request being made here? It appears that is the case, but I'd like to be sure. I'm also curious about the comments about more than two editors, which is the case in this example. This being the case, does it go straight to RfC or such? I'd like to avoid that if possible.
3321:
of us are open to suggestions, but this does not mean that anyone will necessarily agree with them. The most productive procedure here is to pitch your idea and see how it takes. You can modify it if few people like it, but even this will not guarantee acceptance among other editors. Finally, the 3O project isn't falling flat on it face: it's been working wonderfully for a long time now.
2251:
2685:. You look at pages which have already had a third opinion given to check if the dispute has settled down? Surely that isn't a third opinion; it's a fourth (if it's needed). Third opiners should be hanging around to clarify their position anyway; I don't think we really need oversight. If the third opinion didn't solve things, then another type of dispute resolution (an
2077:
Three minutes later (03:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)), it was removed with the edit summary "rv, dispute must be between two editors only." I did not know until after I clicked "Save page" to post the Active disagreement that a third editor (for the first time in over ten days) had posted. I still do
1517:
Show me where in WP:3O it says that a lack of neutrality is grounds for removing a dispute. Actually, better yet, show me a single dispute listed on WP:3O that has been neutral in its description of the dispute. They were right to remove the dispute only on the grounds that more than two editors were
1268:
is better. There's no point to a separate third opinion page. Any dispute in which a third opinion would help would be better solved with more opinions. Better to have just one section where people interested in giving their input could go to see where it's needed. I'm currently in a dispute with one
1030:
was instructed that this does not meet the threshold for a "stub," particularly because it draws editors' attention away from bios that are legitimate stubs and worthy of much more urgent attention that this article. Thanks. I believe I am correct on this, but I will abide by whatever third opinion
1025:
article is a stub. As I described on the talk page and in edit comments, the article may have further development potential, but it contains the person's name, date of birth, place of birth, detailed information on two educational degrees, educational awards, professional positions held, information
990:
The third-opinion process works best in resolving content disputes pursued in good faith by both editors involved. The third-opinion provider will simply provide another view on the dispute that the parties may find helpful; he or she will not act as a mediator and cannot discipline either side. If
979:
by both editors involved. But when one or both editors are bound and determined to have their way, the third opinion rarely seems to solve the problem. And when people are suggesting continual monitoring or disciplinary action, as the user submitting this dispute seems to be doing, the 3O mechanism
481:
As the page clearly says, discussion needs to be made here rather than there. As we already discussed at the article talk page, there are only three editors involved in discussion there, and as
Swatjester had listed me as a vandal a couple of days ago, which was quickly removed by an administrator, I
317:
people abided completely by the instructions to provide one-line, unsigned, neutral summaries, but a quick look at the page shows how many people fail to follow even the first two non-subjective parts of the instruction. Taking it as a given, then, that people are and will continue to provide biased
3617:
I say jump in. If they haven't asked for a 3O, you're under no obligation to call it a formal Third
Opinion - but neither are you constrained by your personal contacts with these editors from being involved. The question is, will your presence there help with the edit war or escalate it to a problem
3433:
So where's the right place to ask for comments when you think another wikipedian is completely disruptive? I looked at all the procedures and each seemed like the wrong place for one reason or another. I tried to be as kind as possible in my description, but the base of the problem is that another
3320:
Editing the page and hoping that no one will object (after similar edits have received objections) is not the way to usher in a compromise. And making changes without first proffering them on the talk page does not constitute making a suggestion: it is forcing your idea on everyone else. I think all
2656:
I wouldn't object, although my practice (in the couple of opinions I've given) is to leave the request listed until I have answered it. Only then do I de-list the request. I think it's silly to wait until things are resolved, because that can take days or weeks, especially if the dispute is headed
1728:
I don't see anybody other than you worried about this. I was not trying to stop a certain editor from getting a third opinion, nobody was. The user simply did not seem to understand how to use the third opinion, and was attempting to campaign his point of view there, contrary to the stated rules. It
1646:
Ok, I realize now that it was not your request that you were reverting, however my point stands that is was not acceptable for the site. Secondly you are talking to me because we had a disagreement about what should be included, please be civil. Thirdly I don't see how my request was in violation of
361:
Well, someone may see flaws with this idea that elude me, but how about simply requiring that the editor who reports the dispute on WP:3O notify the editor he is disputing with and that editor gets the right to provide their version of the dispute if it differs from that of the first editor? If the
334:
Currently there is no requirement that an editor who lists a dispute on Third opinion must notify the other editor involved in the dispute, no matter how serious the allegations being lodged against that second editor. Even if that second editor becomes aware that the dispute has been listed there,
3590:
Thanks for clarifying what happened. It is true that separate discussions have ended up overlapping, and in that sense involved 3 editors. Help is still needed to bring this together into a consensus that isn't dominated by any one editor. Since you suggest mediation, I will read up about that, and
3047:
the template's inclusion. The template isn't just a handy option for those who choose to use it: it disrupts the process for other 3O providers (see the above sections). Additionally, those requesting third opinions may not want to deal with it, either: they might have gone the 3O route in order to
2581:
I've recently noticed that some third opiners, particularly those using the {{Third opinion}} template will leave the dispute listed while they wait for response from those already involved (which is perfectly in line with the current instructions, which say that the dispute should be delisted when
1935:
Perhaps the easiest way out of this problem would be to not require descriptions at all? More often than not, descriptions are biased - even when that is not intended. Whatever the case, a provider of a 3O must look up the article, so the description is actually quite redundant. I therefore suggest
411:
whether the information he's adding is correctly cited and referenced. If you ask the second editor, however, to him it's about whether the article needs more lengthy quotations from the article subject when they already outweigh objective information about the subject by a factor of eight to one.
406:
I agree -- this should not be the place for full-scale discussion. But since even editors disputing in good faith may have different ideas what the dispute is "about", it can harm the chances for getting the dispute actually resolved to take only one side's opinion what it's about. One editor may
3606:
I have been asked to provide a 3rd opinion on an article currently involved in an edit war. I am fairly conversant on the topic (arguably better than most of the parties involved) and I believe my opinion would be useful. However I have had previous dealings with two of the three editors involved,
3581:
I responded to this dispute the first time out, but backed away when it seemed to involve more than two editors. Someone else is welcome to respond, or check the situation out, but I probably should stay out entirely because I responded the first time. Frankly, I think it would be better of as a
1179:
Correct 2-3 of the articles had requests for third opinions on material that was moved to the talk page archives of that article. These were the ones that were 2-3 months old and disscusion on the talk page had ceased for about 3 weeks. (I am willing to go back and find those articles and re-paste
1159:
thought that the request was old enough that a third opinion would no longer be useful. I don't think that requests should be removed for that reason. Obviously, you agree. :) Eagle 101 removed a bunch of other requests on June 14 as well, though from the looks of things most of them were for the
573:
Yep, you picked a fight with two editors who work together at a Miami-area college. Your refusal to consider anything beside one self-conflicting source and a probable misinterpretation of facts landed us here. But you are not correct on either count - and the
Knowledge (XXG) editors who read the
115:
Wikipedians are listed, so that a tiebreaker may be found. If a third opinion is provided otherwise, the controversy should be delisted. If a user decides to provide such a third opinion, he should remove the controversy from the page. This will ensure that the page will not be cluttered, and will
1958:
I mildly object. It doesn't really matter to me if the description is biased. I can look at the description, look at the talk page, look at the article's edit history, and form my own opinion. The bias of the plaintiff doesn't affect me, and I doubt it affects anyone else when the plea is clearly
1658:
I realize now that the article says non-npov entries can be removed. Somehow I kept missing that. I should not have been as confrontational with Luna Santin. However, you have hardly been civil, and it strongly appears as though you and Luna Santin have failed to assume good faith in dealing with
1307:
discussion) and this resulted in input from two other editors being added. However after their input a number of other editors got involved in the discussion... Thing is the first person who offered the third opinion seems to be of the belief that his 3rd opinion is what should be done - it's the
3192:
Ok, you two, lets not have an edit war on a dispute resolution page. Jossi is one revert away from breaching 3RR, and a couple other users are also very close. Lets not edit the page anymore until we work something out, OK? So, does anybody have any objections or concerns about the proposed "see
2924:
The problem is that it robs third opinions of their greatest strength; their speed and informality. A third opiner can go in, read up on the dispute, say their piece, and we're done (hopefully). The template, although a very good idea, make things too formal and slow in my opinion, requiring the
2734:
I think the new template is unfortunate in that it formalizes something that has worked very well informally. Here one of the users seems to have the expectation that this is some formal mediation process, which it is not. Claiming that posting his version of the dispute on your talk page is not
2666:
I developed the habit of navigating the WP:3O history diffs to see requests which have been removed very quickly after posting, then checking the links to see if there has been any progress or resolution. When requests remain visible a little longer, this circuitous route isn't so often needed.
330:
that he is publicly declaring that these VfDs are being brought because there is some sort of campaign against him, rather than because they are POV forks and personal essays -- not to mention that he is calling me a thought policeman, a vandal, a deletionist on behalf of the drug industry, etc.
312:
I'd like it to be understood, first, that I'm not criticizing the idea of having a page to get third opinions on disputes. I think it's an excellent idea. The problem I have is that by its current structure, the first person who decides to report the dispute gets to present his/her side of the
2015:
deleted for non-neutral language. Personally I think this is a good thing because (a) it serves as a lesson for the future, and (b) it indicates that the plaintiff wasn't interested in a neutral opinion to help resolve the dispute, but wanted to sway the opinion instead. If the plaintiff isn't
1206:
section here too late. If you're waiting for a 3O you're probably watching the page in question and the 3O page. For the latter it would be nice to have (dummy) sections, because that would show up as "@topic xyz: 30 given, removed, list not empty". With a bullet list as it was and is the edit
607:
Because "third opinion" implies that only two opinions currently exist, and the rules specify that it's for small conflicts involving only two editors (usually on obscure pages not getting much public scrutiny). The listing on the 9/11 Commission report already had many editors involved in the
184:
I've put a suggested formatting up on the project page. The content should probably be rephrased entirely - I did my best - but I just want to get a feel on whether people find this formatting appropriate. If you disagree with the formatting or the content, simply modify the project page. Once
2500:
Great idea with that category/user box, I will probably join. A have a small gripe with the box design though, as the text appears in no less than four lines in my browser (Firefox on Ubuntu Linux), due to the linebreak after "Third
Opinions". Would there be any harm in removing that break? -
680:
Ok, sounds great! Perhaps we can reduce the how-to then? (and thanks for not getting upset over my changes... I just thought that some attention needs to be paid to the layout of this page. There are somethings wrong... some instructions are stated more than once, and it looks like a english
2708:
I took a 3O request yesterday, thinking it was just a simple content dispute....but the 3O ended up getting quite heated. My request here is for a peer review of how I handled the scenario, so that I don't repeat any mistakes that I made (and I probably made a few). The dispute itself is at
1180:
them on this list if consensus wants me to.) I am not sure if removing them was the proper thing to do as per policy, but... removing old entries has made this page look better. Now it gives fellow wikipedians more hope that issues brought here will be dealt with in a timely manner.
1287:
is better, but in some cases, it's far simpler and quicker to just get a third opinion - especially in cases where it's just a matter of pointing the relevant guidelines to the parties. Perhaps we should make it clearer, though, that the third opinion can be to recommend an RFC.
1126:
I like the idea behind the notice, and it should probably be included. However, we're currently looking to simplify the page, so a shorter and more to-the-point sentence might be useful, and/or splitting it up and incorporating the ideas into the instruction lists on our mockup.
991:
you suspect that either editor involved in a dispute will not accept a third opinion constructively, or if you feel that disciplinary action is called for, a third opinion is unlikely to be effective; you should instead pursue a more formal dispute resolution process, such as a
2956:
useful. In most, if not all cases, it is quite difficult to make heads from tails of a dispute, in particular if the subject is obscure and the editors involved have been going at each other for a while with arguments back and forth. Asking them to summarize, is also helpful
321:
An example is one of the disputes which has just been brought to WP:3O for the second time, where the nominator tries to draw a connection between a disputed sentence in one article and a number of VfDs that have been brought against other articles he feels are "his". From
3656:
Thanks guys! I did this, and suggested that one part of the debate seemed "undebatable" to me, and that the second part of the debate could likely be solved with a new paragraph instead of the constant back and forth edits. I haven't checked back yet, fingers crossed...
1048:
I didn't mean to 'rule' on the 3O in question, or to state that either editor involved was in bad faith; I just thought that it made a good example of the sort of dispute that might not be appropriate for 3O, especially because of the request for continued monitoring.
2744:
I agree. The template was introduced without consensus and has only caused problems (see above discussion). Reading the existing discussion on an article's talk page has always been sufficient for 3O purposes. I'm tempted to put the template up for a deletion vote.
3452:, you should report him/her. I've been in your situation before and understand the frustration of it, but this page is mainly for disagreements where there is at least a minimal mutual acknowledgment of the involved editors' knowledge, abilities, and good faith.
2007:
Looking at those two examples, it seems to me the primary reason for removing the second one was that no dispute existed on the article's talk page. That's reason enough to delete the plea regardless of what else might be wrong with the wording of the dispute
1336:
Sorry, you've lost me there - the discussion itself still isn't resolved, there's still no consensus. However the editor who gave a third opinion seems to be of the view that his third opinion holds sway over all others (see the comments in the diffs above).
1424:
I have a question, and want a second opinion on it. 3O doesn't seem appropriate as it isn't a "dispute between exactly 2 editors" (I appear to be the only editor involved), and RFC seems to be a more formal dispute resolving step. Anyone have suggestions?
3627:
If you're actually involved in the edit war, you definitely need to recuse yourself. If you're know these users, I suggest you offer your opinion. It will be easier to converse with those two if you are familiar with them, and they are familiar with you.
1273:, over an infobox, and it seemed like this is the place to go, but I think a RFC is better. I don't want to trust just one person to break the tie. In fact, I'd probably take it to the next level of dispute resolution even if more people were against me.
3290:, but well, it happens. But to remove it from the "See also" section, is to me being unreasonable. If editors in this project cannot be open to suggestions from newcomers, then the whole idea of having a Third Opinion project falls flat on its face.
2144:
I have noticed that the simple, clear instructions in 'Listing a dispute' on the W:3O project page are ignored by many users who avail themselves of it. In the hope of improving the situation, I indented, italicised, and added a model timestamp to
1819:
No, I never said you should stop removing "this entire section" (although if you had, I would request that you not do that either). You should know that the single sentence you removed is contentious and should not remove it before agreement here.
3213:. I recognize and respect that Jossi will disagree with both of these points, but he has only begun participating in this project this week and is working against experienced people in the 3O project. I recommend abandoning this template idea per
1703:
Strongly disagree, those rules are there so people know this a place for requesting a neutral party, people should not be trying to push one side of the argument when recruiting a neutral party. This system has been working well for some time.
2110:
As being the user that you are alluding to, I am not involved in the dispute. I just said a word in hopes of ending the conversation. Please ignore my comment if need be. I have since relisted the request and notified the delister. Cheers,
1207:
summary is only "3O given, removed, list not empty", and I often checked if this was by chance about my entry. Probably stupid, because then it would also show up on the page in question, but sometimes I miss stuff in my watchlist. --
888:
I've edited the new mockup to simplify and organize things better, and keep the "Active disagreements" section empty of instructions. It should now be much clearer what people should do when they add disagreements and respond to them.
1192:
I looked at the other removals from that time period, and they looked genuinely dead. So I think this one is the only one that needs to be reopened. With any luck someone will provide a 3O soon and we'll have a nice clean list again.
1165:
When you returned your 3O request to the queue, you undid a large number of changes to the wording of the 3O page that have been made over the last few months. So I reverted your change, but I did re-add your 3O request to the queue.
2721:) shortly after I left the 3O template on the page, but says that I formulated an opinion before he told his side of the story. Comments? (Also, I'm looking for true criticism, so please tell it like it is.) Thanks in advance,
2982:
Simoes: I strongly object to your reversion of the template info. Why are you edit warring about this? It is a useful template, and if editors want to use it, that is fine, and if they do not want to use it tat is fine too.
2335:
Looks cool. Maybe it could be made into an official userbox and template, so we could list it on the userbox pages, create a wikiproject, and not have to repeat all that code on userpages? Would be an interesting idea...
3434:
editor is reverting and insisting on their version being the version despite displaying poor article writing skills and a lack of basic understanding of the topic. Expressing that neutrally is hard :-/ So where do I go?
2072:. Dispute: whether the name of the Knowledge (XXG) article should or should not have accent marks. Pertinent article talk page sections: "Accent marks" and "Titles: Episode & Article." 03:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)"
1740:
Now that I think about it, this disagreement is moot. I have this page on my watchlist. So you go ahead and remove the disputes you dont like. I'll just go through the page history and provide third opinions for them.
1582:
Just because other people got away with it is no reason to think you are allowed. If you see someone doing that, enforce the rule, but don't say because it was not enforced in the past that it cannot be enforced now.
164:
It doesn't matter just what it is, but yes, the idea is to allow conflicts to be resolved quickly. "Controversy", by the way, is maybe too strong a word. I was thinking more along the lines of "content dispute". —
3305:
To those that are asking me avoid violating 3RR, I would say this: With more than 32,000 edits in
Knowledge (XXG), I have never breached 3RR knowingly. And I do not intend to do so in this article either.
3443:
If there are other frequent or semi-frequent editors of the article, you might call their attention to the problem by posting on their talk pages. If that is not an option, you could try contacting the
106:
I've just had an idea. Say two
Wikipedians are arguing over some obscure page, watched by no one but them. (This has happened to me.) All they need is a third opinion - someone to break the tie. Hence,
2120:
Whoops—it happened again. I clicked "Save page" here at 03:51, then discovered when I checked my watch page that the original Active disagreement had been restored at 03:49. Thanks, PullToOpen.
1959:
biased. The description is helpful to me. I don't have enough time as it is, and I would prefer to see a summary of the dispute so that I can determine if I want to spend my time getting involved.
536:
in which neither editor is willing to accept the validity of the references the other has made in an attempt to make his point, and the two (one of whom is a colleague of mine) are at an impasse.
1663:
due to its lack of neutrality. I would appreciate it if you would stop using pronouns and be more specific, as I do not know what you are referring to when you say "my request." Please explain.
345:
I understand your concern, but how would you improve it? Possibly the "third opinion" will take into account the fact the person listing the disagreement doesn't follow instructions at least.
2629:
be left listed until it's resolved, as it is for RfCs and so on, although I - and I am evidently not alone - feel that that would defeat the 'quick and dirty' ethos of the third opinion. --
2410:
I'd like to see a userbox with the opposite message: "This editor provides third opinions and occasionally makes use of them" or some such message. That would describe me more accurately.
841:
Merge all the infomation in this section into the other sections. All we are doing here is restating the purpose of the page. If there is unique infomation, lets move it to other sections.
506:
It gives a veneer of anonymity at least, which I think is a useful thing. The user who actually posted the request is clearly identifiable but isn't at the center of it when you read it. (
232:
I think that redirects back to here. Do you think this is ready to go? I don't see why anyone would object. I think we might also want to link it from a general dispute resolution page.
2638:
No, I didn't take it as criticism. Rather, as my 3O was still on the request board when this message appeared, I feel that my actions were the driving force of this comment :). Cheers,
806:
These can be moved to the bottom of the page under the links. Doing this will cut down the clutter at the top of the page. All that is really needed below the opening paragrah is the
3242:
is applicable here. I believe that a discussion would be more productive instead of snowballing the template. (Also, I was under the imperession that WP:SNOW is only for processes.)
724:
In the context of disagreements—related to policy or content—sometimes these disputes involve only two editors. This frequently happens on obscure pages, which not many people watch.
3048:
make possible a quick resolution. Again, I'm sorry, but I can't support the template being on the project page. Unless you can muster up a consensus, it will have to stay this way.
1363:
Well I wasn't intending to disect the issue, just come up with some wording for the page to clarify that you're offering an opinion, not a decision. Anyway from the two diff above:
1370:
WP:3O brought not just a third but a fourth opinion, from people completely uninitiated into the ongoing dispute, and the consensus was that the link was not spam, did not violate
1160:
much more ironclad reason that third parties had already entered into the dispute (thus effectively rendering a third opinion, even though it wasn't in response to the 3O request).
1078:
spells "stub". It contains all necessary encyclopedic information and some info that even goes beyond that. Thanks, and I hope a 3O will settle it to both of our satisfaction.
2785:. As for the template, though it was undoubtedly well intended, WP3O works much better without it. I have never used it, I never will use it, and I will vote for its deletion,
1682:
Get rid of the entire section on "Listing a dispute." It's completely pointless. The emphasis on shortness and neutrality can be moved to the introduction. The rest is needless.
3354:, inasmuch as a good faith edit is immediately reverted, and a subsequent compromise offered reverted again without any discussion about its merits or lack therof. You can keep
1074:(who seems very emotional and persistent, as evidenced by the absurd request for "continual monitoring") unjustifiably escalates the matter further. Nothing about this article
666:
The subheadings by month are unnecessary, since items are listed chronologically with their dates, and there shouldn't be more than a few entries in the list at any time anyway.
1962:
I say, leave the description requirement in. It does no harm, and it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral (even if they fail to do so). =
1635:
Or wait, no, you thought I was listing my own dispute when I reverted Luna Santin.... which means you did not even look at Pco's entry... why am I even talking to you then..?
968:
It seems to me that this dispute suggests that we may want to clarify what sort of disputes are appropriate for the 3O mechanism, so that people don't get frustrated with it.
744:
is a guide for the use of third-party mediators in a dispute. Sometimes a dispute between two editors cannot be brought to a compromise and a nuetral third opinion is needed.
3493:
1374:, and should stay. Those guidelines and procedures were put there for a reason, and that reason was not for you to ignore it. That's the end of it! Do not keep reverting it.
2998:
A sense of proprietorship is understandable, but repeatedly adding it to the project page in the absence of a consensus supporting it is more than inconsiderate and defies
971:
The current instructions allow for "any controversy involving only two editors". From looking at some past 3O disputes, it looks like the 3O mechanism works quite well for
578:) can make up their independent minds. It's time for common sense to reign on this matter, and clearly we cannot rely on either "combatant" to have much common sense here.
276:
but then it struck me that this procedure seems to be working well for 'smaller' disputes and that the two complement each other quite nicely. Please tell me if I'm right?
2625:
No, no; please don't take this as a criticism in any way: firstly, what you were doing totally follows the instructions, and secondly, it could be argued that the dispute
1376:" — this was after other editors (previously uninvolved) had also offered their opinion (and I wasn't the one reverting the link, although that comment was directed at me)
2210:
Is there a
Userbox or Wikiproject that involves editors who regularly monitor this page and provide third-party opinions on topics that they have a neutral interest in?
3358:
project to yourself with that attitude. I am removing this page from my watch list and removing myself from the project. I will not use it again either. Good luck with
663:
template is a bit jarring, especially on a page that in my opinion is already far too much of a howto, which pushes the important part (the list) farther down the page.
2437:
The text in my first draft userbox above can be edited to use on your page, but it doesn't add the category and is not as easy to use as a template. Hope this helps.
631:
in force in Kosovo. The abovementioned law does NOT mention in any part of it, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, but instead refers to it as a legally a part of Former
2689:, for instance) has to be pursued, and that's for the participants in the dispute to decide. If I did misinterpret you, please ignore the above paragraph entirely! --
142:
No, mediation is more complex and takes more time, and other steps are supposed to be taken first. I like this this idea a lot. It's like a streamlined version of
608:
discussion. Those types of conflicts aren't likely to be helped by Third
Opinion anyway, so they should go straight to mediation if civil discussion breaks down.
185:
formatting and content are decided upon, we can see if this can be integrated into the
Knowledge (XXG) dispute-solving procedures. In the meanwhile, hack away. —
2866:
The template itself is a good job, in its structure and purpose, and some may want to use it, but it can be counter-productive to apply it specifically to WP3O.
2841:
PTO, I don't think there was anything you could have done in this case that would have brought about a different outcome. The fact is, if someone believes they
313:
dispute -- and silence the other side, it seems from those who try to reply being told "This is not the place for this discussion." There would be no problem
1618:
My what? Are you referring to a third opinion request in the past that was answered instead of removed? Did you notice that one of the above disputes was one
382:
For example, I think people should just say "Disagreement about foobar," and not go into any detail here. For one thing, that keeps everything streamlined.
1975:
The problem is that editors often fail to do so, sometimes causing vigilant 3O-providers to simply de-list them, without looking into the matter, such as
1354:
I read the discussion. I disagree that "the editor who gave a third opinion seems to be of the view that his third opinion holds sway over all others".
1435:
Maybe the Village Pump or talk pages of related articles, or finding an interested person from one of the various lists and categories of Wikipedians.
3747:
3739:
3734:
79:
71:
66:
3514:
Wikiquette alerts seems suitable, thanks. I'll try it or the cabal if the problem persists (it has been quite for a few hours now, which is nice).
1496:
Peer review is good, I used it once and I got some very good advice. Remember to be specific when you ask for advice there to maximize the benifit.
2069:
796:
1795:
I don't think it is much of a distortion to say that removing part of a section is contrary to the discussion that indicated it is fine as it is.
379:
I don't object to requiring notification. But in my view, this page isn't the place to actually discuss the issues. That fragments the discussion.
866:
980:
seems completely inappropriate; the 3O provider isn't in any better position than the 3O submitter to force their way on a recalcitrant editor.
1771:
You asked here if we wanted to remove that section, and the consensus is not to, please do not remove parts of that section against consensus.
558:
1390:
So, back to the original point - do you think we need to clarify anything on the project page, or is this a one-off misunderstanding? Thanks/
100:
3641:
2470:
use the template. Contributors who want no userboxes on their pages might want to be in the category. That matters more than a userbox.
3043:
I'm sorry you object, but you added it without consensus. You also appear to be only one in favor of it being there, making the consensus
1912:
All three of you, stop it now. Let it go for a few weeks and then, if you still feel like it, bring it up again. It's not a too big deal.
1782:
Correct, I asked about that section, not about whether entries must be neutral to be discussed. Please refrain from distorting consensus.
1715:
I would consider occasional enforcement of a rule so as to prevent certain editors from getting a third opinion to not be "working well."
1233:
You're talking about the dispute listed about Categories, series and list boxes? It has a March date stamp, so I guess it's not just you.
623:
A recent dispute started in this article, recently, due to a revert war started, because of the intro-part of the article. A certain user
214:
3169:
This is unreasonable. A "see also" section, is a compromise that I would have hoped it would be accepted as such. And before your warn
1464:
The article talk pages involved don't seem to get much traffic (I've already posted there)... so maybe I'll try Village pump. Thanks.
318:
summaries of the disputes, allowing the dispute to be characterized solely by the first side to bring it to WP:3O seems rather unfair.
1474:
3497:
2090:
574:
articles and follow the histories (including at least two articles that you are trying vehemently to hide after putting one up for
686:
Reduce the overall number of instructions. The person posting should not have to read through multiple wordings of the same thing.
362:
first editor fails to notify the second, or if the second editor declines to respond, both of these can be taken into account. --
1990:
1948:
1921:
958:
and others. Request to keep a watch on these pages as this user either has a very low learning curve or is a silent vandalizer.
2813:("the informal and speedy nature of the third opinion process is its advantage over more formal methods of dispute resolution")
2592:
I wouldn't object. The current instructions are out of date now, since they were written before this new template was created.
3715:
3532:
2082:
801:
248:
88:
47:
17:
2426:
632:
3489:
2382:
Wow, you work fast—maybe the box itself will be spiffier some day, or perhaps simplicity's best. I'm now in the category.
771:
One paragraph is better than two in this case, as it is easier to read and uses fewer words to communicate the same meaning.
482:
do not regard him as a neutral third party. No fourth editor has edited on the article since the 3rd opinion was asked for.
3027:. You cannot force a consensus which does not exist; neither can you park the responsibility on another user's doorstep.
2888:
For now, I've moved the template line here because WP3O's key advantages, informality and brevity, are obstructed by it.
2085:
are still unfamiliar to me. May the existence of the active disagreement be aired/restored longer than three minutes on
1246:
It was originally removed, and only recently re-added. I'm too lazy to provide diffs though, just check the history :) --
3564:
3462:
3422:
3331:
3268:
3227:
3137:
3058:
2811:
That bulleted line should, I think, be removed from the project page for discussion (or neglect) here. The key concept
2755:
2602:
2542:
2463:
2368:
1304:
2961:. It actually helps to keen the process swift and efficient. If TO editors do not want to use it, they don;t have to.
2364:
2347:
1170:
Note: Never say "I'll try to look at it later today if I have time." Fate will make sure that you don't have time. :)
810:
2222:
So far as I know (I first knew of this project last month) there are none, but your idea drew me into playing with a
520:
bring it sometimes asserts himself into the center of it, by either removing references or merging before consensus (
3286:
I understood that the template was not welcome by some editors on this project. Fair enough. I was surprised by the
2541:
Not as I drew it ;-D I meant the ones on this page. Your current template, however, does, though it's not on the
3706:
554:
38:
3536:
2283:
2258:
2086:
108:
3073:. Why not to allow an option such as this one? "No consensus" is not an argument that can be addressed. Explain
521:
483:
1451:
3636:
1514:: "HighInBC and Luna Santin are making up policy as they go along to justify harassing other editors like Pco.
525:
137:
1478:
2414:
756:-- which should point to the un-biased 3rd party required, also another requirement stated from the start).
3246:
3197:
2874:
2770:
2725:
2718:
2642:
2617:
1546:
529:
475:
1447:
1202:
Thanks, I'm patient with this one pending entry, I just didn't want it to vanish silently. But I saw the
129:
3350:
and offering a useful template for those that may want to use it. Obviously, we have an obvious case of
3127:
have also given similar reasons. There is also, again, the above two sections. I leave the rest to you.
1528:"Sign the listing with "19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)" (five tildes) to add the date without your name."
579:
537:
533:
459:
451:
413:
363:
336:
1986:
1944:
1917:
3674:
3658:
3608:
3243:
3206:
3194:
2767:
2722:
2714:
2639:
2614:
2112:
1250:
3684:
2562:
2531:
2512:
2490:
2401:
2372:
2351:
2337:
2211:
1317:
What do you think can be added to the project page to prevent this sort of misunderstanding? Thanks/
3671:
3631:
3591:
if go down that route I'll remove the 3rd op request from here. Thanks for your input in any case.
3545:
3506:
3403:
3101:
3033:
2944:
2901:
2821:
2795:
2710:
2673:
2551:
2476:
2443:
2388:
2316:
2232:
2183:
2126:
2099:
2047:
1184:
1104:
1079:
1032:
951:
902:
877:
849:
826:
781:
762:
700:
133:
3445:
2030:
There's a line up there I've wanted to emblazon in large type, about the description requirement:
1982:
1940:
1913:
2774:
2422:
1385:" — there's no consensus in the discussion, a 3O opinion doesn't overrule other peoples opinions.
1008:
I further suggest that the page refer to "exactly two editors" rather than "only two editors". --
563:
432:
386:
349:
298:
280:
154:
3687:
3677:
3661:
3648:
3622:
3611:
3595:
3570:
3548:
3518:
3509:
3477:
3468:
3438:
3428:
3406:
3371:
3337:
3315:
3299:
3274:
3249:
3233:
3210:
3200:
3186:
3157:
3143:
3104:
3086:
3064:
3036:
2992:
2970:
2947:
2929:
2919:
2904:
2849:
2824:
2798:
2761:
2739:
2728:
2693:
2676:
2661:
2645:
2633:
2620:
2608:
2586:
2565:
2556:
2534:
2525:
2515:
2505:
2493:
2483:
2450:
2430:
2404:
2395:
2375:
2354:
2340:
2239:
2214:
2198:
2188:
2131:
2115:
2104:
2050:
2020:
1994:
1966:
1952:
1936:
we remove that requirement and just require "] ~~~~~", the article in question and a timestamp.
1925:
1901:
1882:
1873:
1854:
1839:
1824:
1812:
1801:
1786:
1777:
1764:
1745:
1735:
1719:
1710:
1696:
1686:
1667:
1653:
1639:
1630:
1613:
1589:
1573:
1540:
1500:
1490:
1468:
1458:
1439:
1429:
1410:
1394:
1358:
1341:
1331:
1321:
1292:
1277:
1252:
1237:
1227:
1211:
1197:
1187:
1174:
1149:
1131:
1111:
1082:
1053:
1035:
1012:
1002:
962:
927:
914:
905:
893:
880:
852:
829:
784:
765:
703:
674:
639:
612:
601:
582:
568:
540:
511:
500:
486:
444:
435:
416:
389:
366:
352:
339:
301:
3120:
2926:
2690:
2630:
2583:
1289:
3347:
3255:
3239:
3214:
2880:
to create a new section in the article's talk page and request a summary of the dispute. Use
3583:
2846:
2845:
articles, edits, etc, they will not be able to accept criticism, editing, etc. Well Done.
2078:
not know whether he intends to be involved or was merely expressing momentary exasperation.
657:
496:
Why only put the date stamp when you can see who wrote something by looking at the history?
467:
441:
3449:
3351:
3287:
2999:
2842:
2686:
1284:
1265:
992:
273:
252:
247:
I think I was confused earlier. Anyway, I've linked Third opinion from the project page at
202:
143:
3367:
3311:
3295:
3182:
3153:
3082:
2988:
2966:
2915:
2782:
2522:
2502:
1247:
1194:
1171:
1108:
1050:
999:
158:
2223:
1895:
Section, as in a portion, please be civil, it is obvious which planet I am editing from.
1371:
575:
3592:
3540:
3501:
3398:
3205:
I object to it being anywhere on the project page. Its existence has only disrupted an
3124:
3096:
3028:
2939:
2896:
2816:
2790:
2682:
2668:
2546:
2530:
The gold colourful one is currently in the template, and does output to the category.
2471:
2438:
2383:
2311:
2227:
2178:
2121:
2094:
2042:
1879:
1851:
1783:
1742:
1716:
1683:
1664:
1636:
1627:
1570:
1486:
1465:
1426:
1181:
1156:
1075:
1022:
955:
920:
899:
874:
846:
823:
778:
759:
697:
550:
222:
190:
170:
121:
2462:
In the description on the WP:3O page, there's no harm in specifying both options: add
2275:
2016:
interested in neutrality, why bother offering an opinion? Better to delete the plea. =
1758:
but in accordance with existing rules of the page. Please do not insinuate otherwise.
2418:
2350:. Now to test if it works... and then to explain it on this article's main page...
1896:
1868:
1834:
1796:
1772:
1759:
1730:
1705:
1648:
1608:
1584:
1536:
You are welcome to add an opinion to the page concerned if you feel it deserves one.
1518:
involved, but neither of them noticed that. KazakhPol 19:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)"
1497:
1477:, or, in case of "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work",
1436:
1414:
1407:
1406:
The short answer is that I just now changed the second sentence. See what you think.
1355:
1328:
1234:
1208:
1146:
1128:
1071:
1070:
I think a third opinion would be useful and hopefully settle this matter before this
1027:
959:
924:
911:
890:
671:
609:
429:
383:
346:
295:
277:
256:
233:
206:
147:
954:
consistently and inappropriately removes "stub" status from several pages including
1274:
636:
545:
I know I'm right, but I'm being tag-teamed. I will continue to revert your bull. --
1622:
listed? For someone who is willing to enforce the rule on neutrality, the dispute
983:
I might suggest adding a new paragraph to the instructions, something like this:
3714:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3619:
3555:
3515:
3474:
3453:
3435:
3413:
3322:
3259:
3218:
3128:
3049:
2786:
2746:
2736:
2593:
1821:
1693:
1537:
1009:
624:
497:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
2081:
I have been a registered user for only two months. The processes described in
628:
3363:
3307:
3291:
3178:
3149:
3078:
3024:
2984:
2962:
2911:
2778:
2489:
I have no problem with specifying both options on the WP:Third opinion page.
2250:
2037:
it encourages editors to experience what it's like to write something neutral.
1867:
That is a perfectly reasonable request, considering you did it twice already.
1455:
1391:
1338:
1318:
1224:
598:
507:
2658:
2613:
Seconded. I'm sorry I left the 3O I was dealing with on the request page...
2195:
2017:
1963:
1482:
1270:
546:
218:
186:
166:
117:
283:
111:. This will be a constantly changing page on which controversies involving
2938:
not for the informal processes which give WP3O its unique effectiveness.
1549:. Non-neutral disputes that were answered and not removed from this page:
116:
allow for third opinions to be delivered with haste. What do you think? —
696:
I will post my suggested revisions here now:). They will be rewordings.
1223:
Is it just me or has no one commented on this disputed since March? --
752:
editors. (state that requirement from the start), and the addition of
731:
And reword the first paragraph to contain the infomation in the above:
2177:. If this seems to have been excessive, please feel free to revert.
1142:
What's the point of removing requests which never got a 3rd opinion?
215:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Resolving disputes#Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion
1939:
If no objections are raised, I'll change it myself in a few days...
1531:"Listings that do not follow the above instructions may be removed."
3148:
Moved to "See also" section. Let those that want to use it, do so.
2400:
Sweet. Hopefully it will populate with interested Wikipedians...
1754:
I think I have made it very clear that I have not removed anything
923:, see below why, at least one pending request so far got no 3O. --
2890:("If the nature of the dispute is not immediately apparent to you"
689:
Reduce the length of each instruction. State them short and brief.
627:
kept insisting on a definition which violates the most important
3539:
listed each other in See also sections on their project pages.
1833:
I see no reason not the take Grouse seriously, please be civil.
2884:. Only do this if you cannot understand the dispute otherwise…
1021:
I would appreciate and abide by a third opinion on whether the
946:
Over the last few days, this dispute has repeatedly popped up:
919:
I've probably screwed that by a reversion to an older state by
3693:
463:
25:
3473:
Thanks for the link to the cabal, I hadn't seen that before.
3386:"clearing list of two non-neutrally-described disagreements"
2308:→ (Second sample userbox added 11:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
1848:
again unless there is a consensus to do so on the talk page"
869:--- give me about an hour after this message to get started.
2346:
I created the Userbox and associated category! Woo hoo!
2153:
to draw more attention to the form, and bolded the words
862:
I am going to rewrite the instructions in a mockup page.
3492:
can be a good place to post it if you don't want to use
2735:
sufficient to tell his side of the story is ridiculous.
3389:
3019:
3014:
3009:
3004:
1979:
1976:
1849:
1808:
1602:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1511:
1379:
1366:
1312:
1309:
1143:
466:
and I are in disagreement on how the page should look.
1525:"Use a short, neutral description of the disagreement"
3494:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
2717:). The user in question left a note on my talk page (
597:
Just wondering why was that listing inapropriate? --
3412:Ah, the collective rush to do list maintenance. ;)
1327:I don't interpret that discussion the same as you.
1314:) even though the discussion has grown since then.
2063:My post of an Active disagreement was as follows:
1168:I'll try to look at it later today if I have time.
3254:I may be using an overly rough interpretation of
3119:I do believe I gave reasons for my own position.
2934:I think it has potential utility, somewhere, but
2781:page), I was astounded at how nice you were to a
1383:Readd disputed link per WP:3O consensus, see talk
816:tag. The others can go at the bottem of the page.
1659:Pco, and your removal of his dispute entry was
1303:I recently posted a third opinion request (for
3554:If they're okay with it, I don't see why not.
2773:, and I don't think it was easy, either—as in
898:Do it... lets put the mockup on the page... :)
649:I've changed the layout back for two reasons:
3069:This borders on the ridiculous. The template
1103:Okay, I just provided a third opinion on the
8:
3023:on the project page are not good. Do stop,
1607:was far less neutral than any on that list.
440:Anything anywhere to get info on staulking?
201:We might want to eventually link this from
2713:, with a few comments on user talk pages (
867:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion/Mockup1
524:, for example). There is now a dispute at
91:Archive 1: February 2005 — February 2007
2367:, and the category that it outputs to is
2165:link to a specific section in a talk page
1692:I disagree. I think it is fine as it is.
1420:Is there a place to get a second opinion?
3448:. If the disruptive editor violated the
2894:"Read the arguments of the disputants.")
1626:listed was hardly done in with an NPOV.
758:this was edited in after original post:
101:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (proposals)
2766:I think you handled that dispute well,
3712:Do not edit the contents of this page.
3672:Talk:Amelia_Earhart#The ongoing debate
2815:is obstructed by the template itself.
2011:The first example, on the other hand,
802:pt:Knowledge (XXG):Opinião de terceiro
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1475:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for feedback
1454:... Or the article talk page. Thanks/
407:believe and state that the debate is
7:
3498:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment
2091:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment
3531:I wonder if it might be helpful if
2226:userbox; here's a first try at it.
3533:Knowledge (XXG):Neutrality Project
2719:User talk:PullToOpen#Mkill_problem
2543:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians
2464:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians
2369:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians
2083:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes
2070:Talk:Que Será Será (House episode)
1878:What planet are you editing from?
1605:I was refering to on your talkpage
249:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes
89:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion
24:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion
3490:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiquette alerts
1545:You are not welcome to engage in
942:Appropriate nature of 3O disputes
458:Can we get someone to settle the
3697:
2910:Why? I think it is very useful.
2882:{{subst:third opinion|username}}
2274:
2270:
2249:
2245:
1446:I'd normally post a question to
681:proffesor wrote it. Suggestions:
294:I prefer to keep this separate.
128:Surely this is just the same as
29:
3209:and is an instance of needless
3091:It's an option being discussed
2715:User talk:BoxingWear#Re:Problem
2704:Bit off more than I could chew?
2681:I'm not sure I understand you,
2363:Here again is the new userbox:
1596:And I would like to point out,
726:To me that is a waste of words.
272:I was going to merge this into
255:about linking from there also.
99:Initial discussion copied from
2287:and occasionally provides one.
2262:and occasionally provides one.
2173:add the date without your name
1413:That is, I changed the intro.
633:Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
445:23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
1:
3688:23:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3678:22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3662:21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3649:01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3623:00:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3612:00:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
3596:21:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
3537:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion
2775:"Tips for the angry new user"
2194:It looks pretty good to me. =
2132:04:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2116:03:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2105:03:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2087:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion
2021:06:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
1995:00:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
1967:21:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1953:18:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
1926:08:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1902:04:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1883:00:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1874:00:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1855:00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1840:00:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1825:00:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1813:00:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1802:00:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1787:00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
1778:22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1765:22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1746:21:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1736:21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1720:21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1711:20:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1697:20:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1687:20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1668:21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1654:20:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1640:20:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1631:20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1614:20:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1590:20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1574:20:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1541:19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
1452:Knowledge (XXG):Village pumps
1138:Removal of request without 3O
836:Infomation in ==Guidelines==:
516:But sometimes the person who
487:01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
109:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion
3586:16:01, 19 February 2007 (UT
3571:15:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3549:14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3519:12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3510:23:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3496:(WP:ANI) (backlog there) or
3478:12:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3469:19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3439:19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3429:19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3407:19:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
3372:03:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3338:01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3316:01:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3300:01:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3275:01:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3250:01:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3234:01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3201:01:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3187:00:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3158:00:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3144:00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3105:00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3095:, not on the project page.
3087:00:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3065:00:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
3037:00:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
2993:23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2971:21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2948:18:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2930:18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2920:16:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2905:14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2850:16:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2825:10:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2799:10:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2762:02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2740:00:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2729:23:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
2694:18:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
2677:06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
2662:02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
2646:13:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2634:11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2621:01:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2609:00:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2587:00:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
2566:16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2557:15:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2535:12:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
2526:21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2516:19:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2506:18:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2494:18:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2484:11:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2451:03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
2431:18:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2405:10:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2396:10:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2376:09:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2355:09:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2341:09:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2240:09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2215:07:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
2051:09:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
1569:. Should I list a few more?
1501:04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
1203:
326:perspective, the problem is
290:08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
3177:be edit warring yourself.
2199:01:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
2189:00:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
1479:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
1299:3O is just that, an opinion
1031:is issued on this matter.
436:04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
417:00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
390:23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
367:23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
353:18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
340:17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
193:) 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
124:) 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3766:
3346:There is nothing wrong in
1491:10:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1283:For a lot of things, yes,
1261:No need for third opinions
583:22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
569:21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
541:21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
470:11:41 US EST Jan 12 2006.
302:15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
225:) 08:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
173:) 21:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3618:that requires mediation?
3577:Talk: Clinical psychology
3393:—Simoes beat me to it by
2059:Removal of posted dispute
1469:15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1459:15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1448:Knowledge (XXG):Help desk
1440:15:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1430:15:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
1411:15:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1395:14:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1359:14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1342:08:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
1332:15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1322:13:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
1212:17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1198:16:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1188:06:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1175:13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1150:10:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1132:04:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1112:17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1083:17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1054:17:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1036:17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1013:16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1003:04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
963:09:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
928:11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
915:07:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
906:04:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
894:04:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
881:17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
853:17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
830:17:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
785:17:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
766:17:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
704:16:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
675:08:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
522:State Road 4081 (Florida)
512:20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
501:17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
209:08:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
161:16:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
139:00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3602:So, do you just "do it"?
3238:Hmm, I don't think that
2892:is already addressed by
1931:Non-neutral descriptions
1729:is working wonderfully.
1293:19:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1278:19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1253:14:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
1238:06:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
1228:04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
791:Move the category links:
670:Those are my two cents.
640:10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
613:06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
602:19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
526:State Road 913 (Florida)
259:02:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
150:05:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
3207:already-working process
3002:. Repeated reversions
2789:, if that is proposed.
2577:When to delist requests
2205:Userbox or Wikiproject?
1756:because I don't like it
1381:: (from edit summary) "
797:Third opinion/Archive 1
748:Notice the addition of
236:22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2886:
2365:{{User Third opinion}}
2348:{{User Third opinion}}
1844:"please do not remove
1547:historical revisionism
593:9/11 Commission Report
530:State Roads in Florida
484:Get-back-world-respect
476:Crime against humanity
3710:of past discussions.
2868:
1603:third opinion request
1155:It would appear that
993:request for mediation
977:reasonably good faith
629:UN Resolution nr 1244
534:Rickenbacker Causeway
460:Current sports events
452:Current sports events
308:First-to-report bias?
42:of past discussions.
3380:Non neutral postings
3173:of 3RR, you should
718:Drop this statement:
180:Suggested formatting
2711:Talk:Rocky Marciano
1105:Talk:Marilyn Milian
952:User:MiamiDolphins3
213:I've put a note at
3527:Neutrality Project
3077:it is not useful.
2657:for arbitration. =
2466:to one's own page
2140:Clear instructions
1647:any of the rules.
1308:casting vote (see
1169:
811:dispute-resolution
454:formatting, please
155:small-claims court
3753:
3752:
3722:
3721:
3716:current talk page
3370:
3314:
3298:
3211:instruction creep
3185:
3156:
3085:
2991:
2969:
2918:
2870:…you can use the
2810:
2554:
2481:
2480:
2448:
2447:
2434:
2417:comment added by
2393:
2392:
2319:
2310:
2292:
2291:
2282:This user values
2267:
2266:
2257:This user values
2237:
2236:
2186:
2176:
2168:
2160:
2152:
2129:
2102:
2089:or must it go to
2073:
1900:
1872:
1838:
1800:
1776:
1763:
1734:
1709:
1652:
1612:
1588:
1167:
768:
712:Suggested changes
566:
564:Curpsbot problems
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3757:
3731:
3724:
3723:
3701:
3700:
3694:
3644:
3639:
3634:
3568:
3543:
3504:
3466:
3426:
3401:
3392:
3366:
3335:
3310:
3294:
3272:
3231:
3181:
3152:
3141:
3099:
3081:
3062:
3031:
3022:
3017:
3012:
3007:
2987:
2965:
2942:
2914:
2899:
2879:
2873:
2819:
2803:
2793:
2759:
2671:
2606:
2561:Now it is. :)
2552:
2549:
2478:
2477:
2474:
2445:
2444:
2441:
2433:
2411:
2390:
2389:
2386:
2317:
2314:
2306:
2278:
2271:
2253:
2246:
2234:
2233:
2230:
2184:
2181:
2170:
2162:
2154:
2146:
2127:
2124:
2100:
2097:
2067:
2045:
1899:
1871:
1837:
1799:
1775:
1762:
1733:
1708:
1651:
1611:
1587:
973:content disputes
815:
809:
757:
662:
656:
562:
462:pages, please.
414:Antaeus Feldspar
364:Antaeus Feldspar
337:Antaeus Feldspar
288:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
3765:
3764:
3760:
3759:
3758:
3756:
3755:
3754:
3727:
3698:
3642:
3637:
3632:
3604:
3582:Mediation. --
3579:
3567:
3561:
3541:
3529:
3502:
3465:
3459:
3446:mediation cabal
3425:
3419:
3399:
3388:
3382:
3334:
3328:
3271:
3265:
3230:
3224:
3193:also" section?
3140:
3134:
3097:
3061:
3055:
3029:
3018:
3013:
3008:
3003:
2940:
2897:
2877:
2871:
2864:
2817:
2791:
2783:complete maniac
2758:
2752:
2706:
2669:
2605:
2599:
2579:
2547:
2472:
2439:
2412:
2384:
2312:
2293:
2268:
2228:
2207:
2179:
2142:
2122:
2095:
2061:
2043:
1933:
1680:
1606:
1599:
1508:
1422:
1301:
1263:
1140:
944:
860:
813:
807:
714:
660:
654:
647:
621:
595:
494:
479:
474:3rd opinion on
456:
310:
285:
270:
199:
182:
104:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3763:
3761:
3751:
3750:
3745:
3742:
3737:
3732:
3720:
3719:
3702:
3692:
3691:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3603:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3578:
3575:
3574:
3573:
3563:
3528:
3525:
3524:
3523:
3522:
3521:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3461:
3421:
3381:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3341:
3340:
3330:
3318:
3284:
3283:
3282:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3267:
3226:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3164:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3136:
3112:
3111:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3057:
3040:
3039:
2980:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2883:
2863:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2852:
2832:
2831:
2830:
2829:
2828:
2827:
2801:
2754:
2705:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2648:
2601:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2545:page itself.
2539:
2538:
2537:
2498:
2497:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2284:Third Opinions
2279:
2269:
2265:
2264:
2261:
2259:Third Opinions
2254:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2219:
2218:
2206:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2141:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2075:
2074:
2060:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2009:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1970:
1969:
1960:
1932:
1929:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1890:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1828:
1827:
1805:
1804:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1768:
1767:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1700:
1699:
1679:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1526:
1507:
1504:
1494:
1493:
1462:
1461:
1450:or one of the
1443:
1442:
1421:
1418:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1377:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1240:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1162:
1161:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1080:MiamiDolphins3
1076:Marilyn Milian
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1033:MiamiDolphins3
1023:Marilyn Milian
1016:
1015:
997:
996:
966:
965:
956:Marilyn Milian
943:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
871:
870:
859:
856:
843:
842:
820:
819:
818:
817:
799:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
728:
727:
713:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
691:
690:
687:
683:
682:
668:
667:
664:
646:
643:
620:
617:
616:
615:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
514:
493:
490:
478:
472:
455:
448:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
380:
372:
371:
370:
369:
356:
355:
309:
306:
305:
304:
269:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
240:
239:
238:
237:
227:
226:
198:
195:
181:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
162:
153:No, more like
151:
134:GeorgeStepanek
103:
97:
95:
93:
92:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3762:
3749:
3746:
3743:
3741:
3738:
3736:
3733:
3730:
3726:
3725:
3717:
3713:
3709:
3708:
3703:
3696:
3695:
3689:
3686:
3683:Great job!
3682:
3681:
3680:
3679:
3676:
3673:
3669:
3666:Holy smokes,
3664:
3663:
3660:
3650:
3647:
3646:
3645:
3640:
3635:
3626:
3625:
3624:
3621:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3613:
3610:
3601:
3597:
3594:
3589:
3588:
3587:
3585:
3576:
3572:
3566:
3559:
3558:
3553:
3552:
3551:
3550:
3547:
3544:
3538:
3534:
3526:
3520:
3517:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3508:
3505:
3499:
3495:
3491:
3487:
3479:
3476:
3472:
3471:
3470:
3464:
3457:
3456:
3451:
3447:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3437:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3424:
3417:
3416:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3405:
3402:
3396:
3391:
3387:
3379:
3373:
3369:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3349:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3339:
3333:
3326:
3325:
3319:
3317:
3313:
3309:
3304:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3276:
3270:
3263:
3262:
3257:
3253:
3252:
3251:
3248:
3245:
3241:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3229:
3222:
3221:
3216:
3212:
3208:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3199:
3196:
3191:
3190:
3189:
3188:
3184:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3159:
3155:
3151:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3139:
3132:
3131:
3126:
3122:
3118:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3113:
3106:
3103:
3100:
3094:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3084:
3080:
3076:
3072:
3068:
3067:
3066:
3060:
3053:
3052:
3046:
3042:
3041:
3038:
3035:
3032:
3026:
3021:
3016:
3011:
3006:
3001:
2997:
2996:
2995:
2994:
2990:
2986:
2972:
2968:
2964:
2960:
2955:
2951:
2950:
2949:
2946:
2943:
2937:
2933:
2932:
2931:
2928:
2923:
2922:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2908:
2907:
2906:
2903:
2900:
2895:
2891:
2885:
2881:
2876:
2875:Third opinion
2867:
2861:
2851:
2848:
2844:
2840:
2839:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2826:
2823:
2820:
2814:
2809:
2808:
2802:
2800:
2797:
2794:
2788:
2784:
2780:
2776:
2772:
2769:
2765:
2764:
2763:
2757:
2750:
2749:
2743:
2742:
2741:
2738:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2727:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2703:
2695:
2692:
2688:
2684:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2675:
2672:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2660:
2655:
2647:
2644:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2635:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2619:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2604:
2597:
2596:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2588:
2585:
2576:
2567:
2564:
2560:
2559:
2558:
2555:
2550:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2533:
2529:
2528:
2527:
2524:
2520:
2519:
2517:
2514:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2504:
2495:
2492:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2482:
2475:
2469:
2465:
2452:
2449:
2442:
2436:
2435:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2409:
2408:
2406:
2403:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2394:
2387:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2377:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2356:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2344:
2342:
2339:
2334:
2333:
2320:
2315:
2309:
2305:
2304:
2303:
2302:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2288:
2285:
2280:
2277:
2273:
2272:
2263:
2260:
2255:
2252:
2248:
2247:
2241:
2238:
2231:
2225:
2221:
2220:
2216:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2197:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2187:
2182:
2175:
2174:
2167:
2166:
2159:
2158:
2151:
2150:
2139:
2133:
2130:
2125:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2098:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2079:
2071:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2058:
2052:
2049:
2046:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2022:
2019:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1937:
1930:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1903:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1884:
1881:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1856:
1853:
1850:
1847:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1826:
1823:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1814:
1810:
1803:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1785:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1766:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1752:
1747:
1744:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1732:
1727:
1726:
1721:
1718:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1707:
1702:
1701:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1685:
1677:
1669:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1641:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1610:
1604:
1595:
1594:
1591:
1586:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1535:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1523:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1513:
1505:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1467:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1428:
1419:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1409:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1384:
1380:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1367:
1365:
1364:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1343:
1340:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1330:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1306:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1272:
1267:
1260:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1226:
1213:
1210:
1205:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1164:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1144:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1072:User:Drdr1989
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1034:
1029:
1028:User:Drdr1989
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
994:
989:
986:
985:
984:
981:
978:
974:
969:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
941:
929:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
908:
907:
904:
901:
897:
896:
895:
892:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
876:
868:
865:
864:
863:
857:
855:
854:
851:
848:
840:
839:
838:
837:
832:
831:
828:
825:
812:
805:
804:
803:
800:
798:
795:
794:
793:
792:
787:
786:
783:
780:
770:
767:
764:
761:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
743:
742:Third Opinion
738:
737:
736:
735:
732:
725:
722:
721:
720:
719:
711:
705:
702:
699:
695:
694:
693:
692:
688:
685:
684:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
665:
659:
652:
651:
650:
644:
642:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
618:
614:
611:
606:
605:
604:
603:
600:
592:
584:
581:
580:147.70.242.39
577:
572:
571:
570:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
539:
538:147.70.242.39
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
502:
499:
491:
489:
488:
485:
477:
473:
471:
469:
465:
461:
453:
449:
447:
446:
443:
438:
437:
434:
431:
418:
415:
410:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
391:
388:
385:
381:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
368:
365:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
351:
348:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
332:
329:
325:
319:
316:
307:
303:
300:
297:
293:
292:
291:
289:
282:
279:
275:
267:
258:
254:
251:and asked at
250:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
241:
235:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
208:
204:
196:
194:
192:
188:
179:
172:
168:
163:
160:
156:
152:
149:
145:
141:
140:
138:
135:
131:
127:
126:
125:
123:
119:
114:
110:
102:
98:
96:
90:
87:
86:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3728:
3711:
3705:
3667:
3665:
3655:
3633:bibliomaniac
3630:
3629:
3605:
3580:
3556:
3530:
3454:
3414:
3394:
3385:
3383:
3359:
3355:
3323:
3285:
3260:
3219:
3174:
3170:
3168:
3129:
3121:Scott Wilson
3092:
3074:
3071:is an option
3070:
3050:
3044:
2981:
2958:
2953:
2936:specifically
2935:
2927:Scott Wilson
2893:
2889:
2887:
2869:
2865:
2812:
2806:
2805:
2747:
2707:
2691:Scott Wilson
2631:Scott Wilson
2626:
2594:
2584:Scott Wilson
2580:
2499:
2467:
2461:
2413:— Preceding
2362:
2307:
2281:
2256:
2172:
2171:
2164:
2163:
2156:
2155:
2148:
2147:
2143:
2080:
2076:
2062:
2036:
2035:
2029:
2012:
1938:
1934:
1909:
1908:
1846:this section
1845:
1809:my talk page
1807:Copied from
1806:
1755:
1681:
1660:
1623:
1619:
1516:
1512:my talk page
1510:Copied from
1509:
1495:
1463:
1423:
1405:
1382:
1369:
1316:
1302:
1290:Scott Wilson
1264:
1222:
1141:
998:
987:
982:
976:
972:
970:
967:
945:
872:
861:
844:
835:
833:
821:
790:
788:
776:
753:
749:
741:
739:
733:
730:
729:
723:
717:
715:
669:
648:
622:
596:
517:
495:
480:
457:
439:
427:
408:
333:
327:
323:
320:
314:
311:
271:
200:
183:
112:
105:
94:
60:
43:
37:
3704:This is an
3584:Pastordavid
3542:— Athænara
3503:— Athænara
3400:— Athænara
3030:— Athænara
2952:I found it
2898:— Athænara
2847:Pastordavid
2807:Postscript:
2792:— Athænara
2777:(linked on
2670:— Athænara
2157:description
2149:For example
2044:— Athænara
1195:Kickaha Ota
1172:Kickaha Ota
1109:Kickaha Ota
1051:Kickaha Ota
1000:Kickaha Ota
975:pursued in
625:User:Osli73
468:NoseNuggets
36:This is an
3500:(WP:RFC).
3395:one minute
2523:Cyrus XIII
2503:Cyrus XIII
2180:Athænara
2113:PullToOpen
1506:Neutrality
1248:AbsolutDan
734:Like so...
159:Neutrality
3748:Archive 5
3740:Archive 3
3735:Archive 2
3729:Archive 1
3668:it worked
3593:EverSince
3364:≈ jossi ≈
3362:project.
3308:≈ jossi ≈
3292:≈ jossi ≈
3288:ownership
3179:≈ jossi ≈
3150:≈ jossi ≈
3125:Athaenara
3079:≈ jossi ≈
2985:≈ jossi ≈
2963:≈ jossi ≈
2912:≈ jossi ≈
2683:Athaenara
2440:Athænara
2385:Athænara
2229:Athænara
2096:Athænara
1910:Proposal:
1880:KazakhPol
1852:KazakhPol
1784:KazakhPol
1743:KazakhPol
1717:KazakhPol
1684:KazakhPol
1665:KazakhPol
1637:KazakhPol
1628:KazakhPol
1571:KazakhPol
1522:It says:
1466:ONUnicorn
1427:ONUnicorn
1157:Eagle 101
130:mediation
80:Archive 5
72:Archive 3
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
3565:contribs
3488:Gronky,
3463:contribs
3423:contribs
3332:contribs
3269:contribs
3228:contribs
3138:contribs
3059:contribs
2959:for them
2862:Template
2756:contribs
2603:contribs
2521:Cool! -
2427:contribs
2419:Amatulic
2415:unsigned
2008:summary.
1991:contribs
1949:contribs
1922:contribs
1897:HighInBC
1869:HighInBC
1835:HighInBC
1797:HighInBC
1773:HighInBC
1760:HighInBC
1731:HighInBC
1706:HighInBC
1678:Proposal
1649:HighInBC
1609:HighInBC
1585:HighInBC
1498:HighInBC
1437:Maurreen
1415:Maurreen
1408:Maurreen
1356:Maurreen
1329:Maurreen
1235:Fagstein
1209:Omniplex
1204:#Mock Up
1147:Omniplex
1129:Fagstein
960:Drdr1989
950:A user,
925:Omniplex
912:Fagstein
891:Fagstein
672:Fagstein
610:Fagstein
430:Maurreen
384:Maurreen
347:Maurreen
296:Maurreen
257:Maurreen
234:Maurreen
207:Maurreen
148:Maurreen
113:only two
3707:archive
3348:WP:BOLD
3256:WP:SNOW
3240:WP:SNOW
3215:WP:SNOW
3045:against
3020:(23:27)
3015:(21:49)
3010:(17:03)
3005:(16:49)
2779:Jossi's
2511:Done.
1983:Jobjörn
1941:Jobjörn
1914:Jobjörn
1337:Thanks/
1275:-Barry-
1269:person
858:Mock Up
754:nuetral
658:warning
637:ilir_pz
450:Settle
328:exactly
223:f&t
191:f&t
171:f&t
122:f&t
39:archive
3620:Snuppy
3557:Simões
3516:Gronky
3475:Gronky
3455:Simões
3436:Gronky
3415:Simões
3390:(diff)
3384:In re
3368:(talk)
3352:WP:OWN
3324:Simões
3312:(talk)
3296:(talk)
3261:Simões
3220:Simões
3183:(talk)
3171:others
3154:(talk)
3130:Simões
3083:(talk)
3051:Simões
3000:WP:OWN
2989:(talk)
2967:(talk)
2916:(talk)
2843:WP:OWN
2787:Simões
2748:Simões
2737:Grouse
2627:should
2595:Simões
2169:, and
1822:Grouse
1694:Grouse
1538:Grouse
1311:&
1266:wp:rfc
1107:page.
1010:Takeel
910:Done.
645:Layout
619:Kosovo
532:, and
498:Slizor
433:(talk)
387:(talk)
350:(talk)
299:(talk)
281:adiant
274:WP:RFC
268:Merge?
253:WP:RFC
203:wp:rfc
144:WP:RFC
3675:Maury
3659:Maury
3609:Maury
3397::-D
3098:— Æ.
3025:jossi
2941:— Æ.
2818:— Æ.
2548:— Æ.
2313:— Æ.
2224:WP:3O
1978:and
1456:wangi
1392:wangi
1372:WP:EL
1339:wangi
1319:wangi
1225:Hetar
1182:Eagle
988:Note:
921:Eagle
900:Eagle
875:Eagle
847:Eagle
824:Eagle
779:Eagle
760:Eagle
698:Eagle
599:Zr2d2
576:WP:3O
508:ESkog
442:Scott
409:about
287:|<
286:: -->
16:<
3685:Smee
3535:and
3360:your
3356:your
3123:and
3093:here
2954:very
2659:Axlq
2563:Smee
2532:Smee
2513:Smee
2491:Smee
2473:—Æ.
2423:talk
2402:Smee
2373:Smee
2352:Smee
2338:Smee
2212:Smee
2196:Axlq
2123:–Æ.
2018:Axlq
1987:Talk
1964:Axlq
1945:Talk
1918:Talk
1601:the
1598:your
1487:talk
1483:Itai
1481:. —
1368:: "
1305:this
1271:here
1185:talk
903:talk
878:talk
850:talk
827:talk
782:talk
763:talk
740:The
701:talk
653:The
547:SPUI
518:does
428:OK.
219:Itai
217:. —
187:Itai
167:Itai
118:Itai
3450:3RR
3175:not
3075:why
2687:RfC
2371:.
2093:?
2034:→
2013:was
1661:not
1624:you
1620:you
1285:RFC
1145:--
834:3.
789:2.
750:two
716:1.
559:RFC
492:Urm
464:Zoe
412:--
197:RFC
3744:→
3670:!
3569:)
3546:✉
3507:✉
3467:)
3427:)
3404:✉
3336:)
3273:)
3247:TO
3232:)
3198:TO
3142:)
3102:✉
3063:)
3034:✉
2945:✉
2902:✉
2878:}}
2872:{{
2822:✉
2804:→
2796:✉
2771:TO
2760:)
2726:TO
2674:✉
2643:TO
2618:TO
2607:)
2553:✉
2518:.
2479:✉
2468:or
2446:✉
2429:)
2425:•
2407:.
2391:✉
2378:.
2343:.
2318:✉
2235:✉
2161:,
2048:✉
1993:)
1989:°
1981:.
1951:)
1947:°
1924:)
1920:°
1815:"
1565:,
1561:,
1557:,
1553:,
1489:)
1288:--
873:--
845:--
822:--
814:}}
808:{{
777:--
661:}}
655:{{
567:)
561:-
557:-
553:-
528:,
510:)
324:my
315:if
205:.
157:.
146:.
132:?
76:→
3718:.
3690:.
3643:5
3638:1
3562:/
3560:(
3460:/
3458:(
3420:/
3418:(
3329:/
3327:(
3266:/
3264:(
3244:P
3225:/
3223:(
3217:.
3195:P
3135:/
3133:(
3056:/
3054:(
2768:P
2753:/
2751:(
2723:P
2640:P
2615:P
2600:/
2598:(
2568:.
2496:.
2421:(
2357:.
2217:.
2185:✉
2128:✉
2101:✉
2068:"
1985:(
1943:(
1916:(
1567:5
1563:4
1559:3
1555:2
1551:1
1485:(
995:.
555:C
551:T
549:(
284:_
278:R
221:(
189:(
169:(
136:\
120:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.