Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion/Archive 3

2619:

of another page just for 3o volunteers would be better? ] or similar might be good and then just leave this page to people who feel the need to comment on their dispute here. I've often found that people involved in a dispute take the dispute elsewhere, sometimes to the 3o volunteer's talk page, sometimes their own talkpage, here or elsewhere. Personally I do a lot of ADR in real life and have always found that communications outside of the dispute forum (in our case the talk page where the dispute is being held) tends to cause problems. Sometimes one side will contact the mediator via a side route, hoping for favour or hoping to explain without the other side knowing. Whilst I'm not saying that this is occurring here (although it may be), I do think that it is open to it.

2119:

multiple editors. I felt that the referral between these two groups should be streamlined to allow quicker referral from one to the other. Although this does exist in the form or a suggestion on the WP:3O page and there is no such suggestion on the MEDCAB page. What i am proposing is a direct referral process, so that what multi party disputes posted at WP:3O can be quickly and efficiently be passed on to WP:MEDCAB and vice versa with regards to 2 party disputes. Given that most content disputes 99.99% of the time have to go through MEDCAB before going on to MEDCOM it seems a sensible idea. This could happen by the referral by the cabalists and 3O contributers themselves with a message on the parties concerned informing them of the referral.

164:, i told that text is not same because Al-kitab as per text of quran has only references of Qur'ani ayats to tell that Al-kitab doesnot reffer to gospels or torah or zabur whici struth of Qur'an it looks that wikipedea is a place to write about some thing and not as per that thing. like Qur'an related articles are as per people arguments and not as per text of quran it self. better wikipedea should write " wikipedea is a place to tell about Qur'an what ever they like butdonot write as per text of Qur'an. 724:

There is also editor C, who supported my position on A's talk page. I don't know whether C will continue to be involved. So currently it is just two editors actively involved in a dispute. But you could also say that there are three or four editors. If editor A won't listen to my latest note on his talk page, would it be appropriate for me to come here, or should I take it back to EAR, or perhaps ANI, or RFC/U? I don't want to make a bigger deal than necessary but editor A has to back off.

4037:(I just saw this.) I don't think an organized list will work. Technically, there are no members of the 3O project and anyone can drive by and give a 3O whether they sign up or not (the instructions 'encourage' but don't 'require' membership). Which seems to work reasonably well (I noticed several names on EhJJ's list who are not 'signed up' 3rd opinionators). The canvassing was, IMO, inappropriate, even without the last sentence. Perhaps we could add a 31: 1214:. He seems to be energized by a poorly-considered opinion coming from this page (itself a fork of a bogus arbitration case he started) and is coming for another dip in the well. I would delete or comment his request but I would rather not be so aggressive in dealing with him. All I can do is urge anyone who would think this is a simple request to be very careful about responding. Probably best to leave it to AN/I. Thanks, 699:

failed to receive any support at talk page came here to ask for support. And Athaenara directed him at the article talk page but he reverted Athaenara's edit again pushing those things where he failed to receive any support from other editors. Is it OK to ask for a third opinion if it's not two users who fail to reach an agreement but rather one user who feels current article state is not good and wants it changed? --

2454:, bright, bold header template that informs visiting editors (whomever they may be) the purpose of the page (the talkheader as it is is not working), and 2) a set of {{uw-3o talk}} warning templates for putting on user talk pages who violate this, and 3) a policy that any editor can simply remove any posts here that are not for the purposes outlined above. Comments 1908:) and he may delete my talk edit about this, but it's currently there at that URL. Sorry again for the weak posting skills that I have, but I'm a stickler for stuff like this so I'd like it if somebody can sort it out (I get super annoyed at movie theatres that make similar time goofs and play 'midnight' movies at 12:01am instead of midnight... lame!). Thanks! 2377:

Because the other editor appears to be very passionate and accusatory in his responses (despite having a good knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) guidelines), I question the neutrality of the article. What we need is a neutral third party to weigh the arguments, to determine the reliability and relevance of sources, and to determine if there is NPOV in the article.

2670:

absolutely sure I've done enough to help resolve an issue. If you see a topic that I've commented on and you think I was able to resolve it as best as can be expected, please delete it on my behalf? Or for that matter, please feel free to chime in with additional help and/or let me know how you think I might be able to help better in the future. Thank you,

4018: 1673:. ( It happens when one editor focused on content generation finds themself all alone, while other editors focused merely on content validation find themselves together more on opposite mind-set than on an opposite side. The content generation side is routinely in the minority, while the content validation side in the majority.) 3950:

Active participants are really the only ones who would know how a Third opinion/Active members or Third opinion/Active participants page may properly be maintained. There input is important as they are the ones who will be left to maintain it in my opinion. I suggest that only Active participants add

3698:

Nor, despite his assertions has he been presonally attacked by TO editors. I personally have said some unkind things about his edits but have not attacked him presonally. The TO editors have done nothing but give their opinions on the article. As for uncivil, I suggest people look at Domer's own talk

2648:

I do not see a problem. Compared to other talk pages, such as the MOS, this one is refreshingly on-task. Often even experienced editors do not know exactly where to post a question/concern/discussion, and accidentally use the wrong forum. I frequently am guilty of this, and have edited WP since 2006.

4266:

I think the first step (removing the category link from the userbox) is a good idea. However, let's say I add the category to my user page and then stop providing Third Opinions (or even leave Knowledge (XXG) for a couple of years). The only way to remove me from the category will be to edit my user

4059:

That said, 3O generally works well. I sometimes take a look at the opinions that others are giving and they generally conform to the spirit of neutrality in tone and content. So, I'm not particularly worried about the process. An additional restriction on canvassing, possibly a 'do not edit the page

3955:

project. A post to the current listed members outlining this would get the ball rolling, they can respond in two ways, A) display the userbox and respond to the post or B) remove it and ignore the post. If an editor ignores the post and still display the userbox remove them from the list. Thats just

3789:

I don't suggest otherwise, but IMO filling a report and then picking out a select few for personal messages leaves the opinion offered some what clouded and then when the editor making third opinion attacks an editor on the talk page of another editor voids the opinion as neutral, as is the idea not

3248:

to Calabraxthis thanking them first before offering some opinions of my own on the suggestions made. I received no response to any of the issues I raised and found the opinion very judgmental, examples would include "appears to have inflamed historic positions" "read like a piece of secondary school

2618:

Out of the 24 headings above I count 14 that are not to do with either the 3O process or the 3O page. I agree that perhaps "punishment" is inappropriate, but do feel that other stuff seems to get lost in the inappropriate posts. I wonder if this is a good use of this page, or if perhaps the addition

1656:

request to a halt, then this process would seem to have large regions of unstable and unusable situations: a large class of what are essentially two-party disputes would be out of reach, but are still essentially two-side disputes. Hypothetically, if other third editors outside WP:3 comes along and

4280:

I think we can deal with that kind of thing on a case-by-case basis. For now, having revisited the January 2007 discussion in Archive 1 and the page histories of the template and the category, and as we've all seen here some of the problematic results of what they've invited, I followed through on

4142:

are not part of the project and don't keep it going. The category does play a rather distant auxiliary role, however, because in a general sense such users may contribute to dispute resolution. (This last statement does not apply to the specifics of the Dunmanway case discussed above, and I agree

3932:

Active participants (these have included Vassyana, HelloAnnyong, RegentsPark, Jclemens, Arimareiji, EhJJ, Bradv, Seraphimblade, Amatulic, Lazulilasher, Padillah, Eve Hall, Anaxial, AlekseyFy, and others) should probably discuss how a Third opinion/Active members or Third opinion/Active participants

3806:

But I picked the TO's completely at random. It was they, without prompting who thought Domer's edits were npov. They haven't attacked him. If you don't think they're impartial then please ask more TO's (again at random) and lets hear what they say. I would sugest the lack of impartiality is located

3442:

I don't have time at the moment to look through all of the links provided, but I certainly believe all third opinions are open to scrutiny. Generally, the third opinion process is intended to be informal, but we do try our best to provide neutral opinions supported by Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and

896:

This is not the same as the first complaint. This is between me and Tarage, who has asserted that he can call me a troll all day long with impunity. I just want an opinion on whether it is within any policy that it is not a personal attack to call me a troll. Tarage is a single-purpose account,

723:

where I picked up. Since then I have been tying to persuade editor A to stop his reverts. The beginner is not directly involved right now because, well because she is a beginner and doesn't know policy. I'm acting on her behalf, so at the moment the dispute is primarily between myself and editor A.

4012:

third-opinions in the past two months." As such, a one-off third opinion would not count for inclusion, while members who have been absent from the project would be timely removed (of course, they wold be considered active again as soon as they provided more than one third-opinion.) The following

2865:

A knowledgable, active 4th party has joined this article. While the personal friction that led to the 3O request has been addressed, it has not been explicitly resolved. I believe continued attention to the friction will only distract unhelpfully from attention to the good content proposals of the

2372:

about the reliability of sources for the article. Although I am not innocent for remaining calm in the discussion, the editor has responded in an aggressive attitude and removed these sources from the article on grounds that they are contentious material about a living person. He has also stated

1899:

page about WWE's advertising goof in which they bill next year's Wrestlemania as being the "25th anniversary" when it is actually the 24th anniversary (first one was in 1985). There is another editor that is continuosly deleting the updates I make, leaving comments like "who cares" about pointing

1768:

And now you list that as a dispute? Please. I removed that. However, for the sake of argument, you may consider this my third opinion: The third opinion is not an official policy and there is no official process. The editor handling a 3O request will do that without obligation and will just make a

3984:

provides one" (emphasis added), so anyone who ever intends to provide one again "soon" would feel entitled to use it. (Of course, we could change the template to remove the last part and the automatic inclusion into the category; however, that would not address the second problem.) Second is that

3928:

WP:3O is an informal mediation project, and it's category is even more informal in that any editor who adds the userbox to a userpage, for whatever reason, will be visible there. The vast majority of those editors don't actually participate in the project: in any average week there are perhaps a

3694:

At no time did I suggest which pov they should take. Nor did I influence thier views on this particular debate. This, therefore, was not canvassing but simply asking for neutral editors to comment. Domer's problem with them appears to be that they don't agree with him. I don't see what reason for

2376:

There are a few other editors involved in the dispute, and who have been accused of Meat Puppetry by this editor, of trying to sabotage or defame the article. Because I got involved in trying to reconcile the use of sources for the article, I have also been included in the Meat Puppetry report.

698:

Is it the abuse of good will of mediators when a user asks for third opinion if he is the only one complaining versus consensus reached by other editors (many of them who were strongly against each other in the past so it required a lot of effort to reach a common position). Specifically user who

2449:

or for discussing the process of third opinion itself. It is not for editors in a disputeCan we have some suggestions for how to take this page back and stop it from being used in the actual disputes that we, the 3O volunteers, are trying to resolve? My first suggestion would be three-fold; 1) a

2949:

I removed unreferenced naming of people who are claimed to fall into this category, the list was re-inserted, I removed again with note on the talk page. Some of the names have been added again, although few of the WP articles of the relevant persons confirm they should be on the list, the only

2118:

After discussion with many people off wiki about this subject i felt it would be a good idea to see if there is widespread consensus for this to happen. These two methods of dispute resolution are similar but differ mainly in that 3O deals with disputes between two editors and MEBCAB deals with

3839:

Well, what can I say to that? You're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you. Calibraxthis in both cases was stating his opinion. I repeat, I feel that most editors we consult will find a npov problem on behalf of one editor to be the source of the problem here. Lets ask some more.

2669:

To anyone offering 3rd opinions, hello! I'm trying to learn how to offer useful 3rd opinions, and you may see my input in various sections. I'm not very confident yet of my ability to be helpful, so I'm hesitant to delete topics I've commented on. If I haven't deleted it, it's because I'm not

3390:

I'm uncertain as to how we should deal with a solicited third opinion in the rare cases where it does happen. I'd like to avoid making the "Providing third opinions" list any longer, and it does seem to be covered adequately by the first bullet point. Perhaps someone else has a good idea.

4364:

Active 3Oers are found by looking on the project page history, not a separately maintained list. I currently have no interest in labelling up the things I do at wikipedia. My user page is a bit of a mess with things I've found useful or might need again, but I'm currently quite active

2084:

There is already a Third opinion on the article and you decided not to listen. Rockpocket has been doing a great job, and although I'm not overly happy about everything they have done, I've gone along with it. You have decided to drag this onto other articles now, and it has to stop.

2903:

This user contacted me on my talk page to let me know he was satisfied things (while unresolved) were as good as they were likely to get. I believe he was correct. He requested the 3O, I consider he has also closed it, despite the fact that I've heard nothing from the 2nd party.

3714:

On your request to the TO editors you IMO clouded the issue by stating that Domer wasn't acting in good faith, I can't see the reason why you had to ask these TO editors as you had already filed a request unless you felt they would have given the type of response you wanted.

718:

Would this qualify for 3O? At this point, the dispute is primarily between myself and one other editor, but there are two other editors who are somewhat involved. The original dispute was between A and B, a beginner. The beginner didn't know what to do so asked a question at

947:

are all interconnected and actively involve more than two editors. I will therefore be offering merely an opinion rather than a full-blown 3O. Despite this lack, I do not think that this issue should be relisted here, so I am offering this explanation instead. Regards. -

4483:, although, in this instance, I wouldn't think it would be very likely to happen. If it's a debate between just you and him (as your link seems to indicate), then someone can provide a Third Opinion as a tie-breaker, which you can request through the usual method on the 228:, which said the country France signed an armistice with a person, Hitler. Which is an anomaly. Countries normally go to war against countries or groups of individuals, not single persons. So I corrected the heading. And this guy Steve is warning and threatning me. 1455: 901:

you are talking about me, you are wrong. I firmly believe in the policies, am very aware of them, and have even substantially edited some of them. Im FOR facts, sources, verifiability, neutrality and consensus. I'm against stating unfounded assertions as

4060:

yourself' and a 'confine any follow-up remarks to explaining your opinion' should be sufficient for now. The one thing that is missing is some sort of analysis of the effectiveness of this process but that's beyond the scope of what we are discussing here.

3204:

My first concern is, having filed the request why then got direcly to two editors talk pages making the same request. Selecting which editors you want to offer a third opinion will counteract the whole neutrality of the process. Jdorney by putting forward

2276:

I've removed a post from DYK that the poster admits was meant to derail it until his personal interpretation of an article was redone to fit their view. After having asked them to remove it more than twice, he suggested that I could do it. I have.

3501:

Domer48's critique is thoughtful and reasonable. I've been canvassed a very few times and feel the only appropriate response is to point out the project's open nature and its accessibility to all uninvolved editors who check the active listings.

1249:

and several other lower-grade references, but that doesn't seems to be enough. The main arguement in his (their) respect is in relation to UNDUE weight. I really don't see the point of disputing an edit regarding person who is referenced by the

155:

even hang template was also placed by me even then that article has been deleted. is ther any body who can check and control Editor2020 attitude along with talk pages of editor2020 and Al-kitab as per Qur'an talk pages. he moved the pagege to

2228:. It is only a draft suggestion but I think a place to start from and to at least show the idea. If people wanted to take a look and then comment here of the validity of the idea and/or the content of the school, that'd be great. Thanks! :-) 1993:

Agreed. An AfD between two people would never be closed by an admin--it'd be relisted. Thus, any disputed AfD will already have three or more participants. Not only would it be a procedural bump, it would also be outside the 3O charter.

1980:

Is this something we should involve ourselves in. I say, no because a 3O would not be needed due to an admin making a decision on consensus of the AfD discussion. A 3O would only get in the way and may make the debate last longer? Thoughts

2602:, but a simple note "This is not the place to continue your dispute. Say what you need to at the relevant talk page, and someone will read it there and offer a third opinion." would be preferable to removing the comments as a first step. 2515:) ~ 15 kb. I don't think allowing that to continue will harm the project in any way, although there is certainly room here for discussion about the degree to which the use of this talk page could be either encouraged or discouraged. — 988:

For what it's worth, my own view is that Persian Mesopotamia, the present article name, is more useful than any of the others proposed, including Achaemenid Assyria. Because there are so many editors involved in the discussion (see the

4431:

These templates were white and blue until this user made the change to red and white. He explained his reasons in the templates talk. Disagreeing with him, I undid his changes and explained my reasons (better than his ones, I'm sure -

669:

Sadly not though, it is now at Afd, if you guys (without prejudice) who think it is worth saving could include your comments at the Afd it would be appreciated, details of the socks would be useful, this to me is a very bad listing.

4439:

After almost a month, a IP undid my changes. Another user undid his undid. The IP undid it, a third user undid the IP, and the IP undid again, apparently based only in his personal opinion: only because red is the new first kit of

2342:

I finally grew tired of insisting the other user be the one to remove it, and decided to pull it myself, so as to not further delay the DYK with the artificial drama. As per the other user's request, I've posted it here. Thanks. -

4049:

was not in the spirit of a third opinion. A third opinionator should keep a neutral tone even after giving the opinion to avoid any impropriety and should not consider editing the page (opinions, rather than action). I agree with

2318:

incorrect and is heavily cited. Furthermore, DYK is designed to bring editors to the article. All the better to deal with any perceived neutrality issues, right? That is, unless Jaak is suggesting that the DYK is somehow false? -

1737:

indicated an unopposed consensus to merge the two pages; this proposal was four days old when I removed your (though of course until I checked yesterday I did not know who had entered the request) posting. The question of whether

231:

Could somebody please evaluate his judgement, competence, ability to think in a rational manner or whatever would qualify him as an editor for Knowledge (XXG)? And hopefully reinstate my edit if it is not asking for too much?

303:

If you don't want to deal with one plea, look for another. That's what I do. There isn't any requirement to deal with them in order, although personally I try to give more weight to pleas that have been sitting there a while.

1879:. They have also opened it up for RfC and at least one person has seen it there and responded. It might be better now for that to continue now that it's open. Up to the person who decides to take it, I'm not going to bother. 2437:; ie: the one you're reading now, has been taken over by editors involved in a listed dispute using it as a platform to use as a talk space for the actual dispute itself, or aspects of it. Now this is completely wrong and 3313:

In conclusion, while I found this experience of Third Opinion less than pleasant, I still have confidence in the process and would not let this experience cloud my views or deflect me from using it in the future. Thanks,

3822:

And again I don't suggest otherwise but the comments by Calabraxthis after they offered a 3O have brought this up and IMO they are the cause of this little bit of drama and have made any opinion offered null and void.

2950:

external link does not not confirm that the person should be listed - which makes me a little concerned with the book references. Can somebody look at the article and talk page and assure me there is not conflict with

4354:

What value is there in a list of "active" 3Oers? Editors bringing disputes are told to list them at #Active disputes, not pick an active editor from a list availble. Again I would ask how a list of active 3Oers is

2866:

4th party. I have excused myself from further comment and made a promise of adopting "lurk" mode for a while. I tentatively propose that this case is closed (courtesy of the excellent input from the 4th party).

1254:

as being an inherent part of the telescope (indeed, he made the 1st magnifying device: a magnifying glass). I hope I can be helped here. I just want to contribute. The discussion can be found in the article's

102:

I'd like to use the "third opinion" option, but there are three editors involved. There are, however, only two "sides" - any thoughts on whether "third opinion" is appropriate? The discussion in question is

3652:

correspondence between the many listed in the category and the relatively few who actively participate in the project. That affects other users' perceptions and expectations and needs to be addressed. —

3373:"community" to be able to communicate with each other, it seems to me that most editors who are in that category are inactive and some editors who are active are not in the category. My suggestion is that 3855:

Just a couple of points, first, no diff for me being uncivil. Second that is a personal attack. Third, RedKing is not listed as a TO, and you did canvass them. Now the diff's I provided back this up. --

4455:. He wants to force his personal opinion; I want to put what a set of facts, that I mentioned in the discussion, show not only to me, but to another two users who also had disagree with the IP. 4451:

Than, after the IP undid the change of the third user that undid him, I came back and undid the IP. Since this, I had to undid him twice. His simple justification, against all my rational ones?

1510:

It was the first 3O from this user. I don't know if he will continue to offer third opinions. If he does, it will reflect on the WP:3O project. Anyone want to offer him some guidance? —

2012:

before using similar reasoning regarding an editor accusing another of being an SPA. The closing admin will weigh the opinions given in the discussion, there is no reason for a 3O in AfDs.

3469:

as a possible guide and source of advice on how we provide neutral Third Opinions. For example thing to avoid when offering an opinion. This would help with offering a Third opinion in a

4396: 3768:

Because I couldn't be bothered fighting with you about rules Domer. I'm here to edit the articles. That's it. I've no interest in spending my time disputing WP policy with you. And that

3980:

I don't think that it's feasible for us to patrol the category and ask members who are not active to remove the userbox. For one, the wording of the box says "Values Third opinions and

3209:

of the nature of the dispute in their request already colours the discussion before the opinion is given in my opinion. Is it the case, or should it be the case that editors listed at

1047:

I'm pretty new to providing Third Opinions, just wondering whether a couple of more experienced folk might keep an eye on me for a bit, just to make sure I'm not screwing up. Cheers,

359: 2578:

I must be missing something, I don't see such a thing anywhere on this page. Every once in a while I see someone lost posting here instead of where they're supposed to, and I see one

1618:) and I are involved with content disputes. When it can be shown that the main dispute is really between two editors--yet other partisan editors commented and took actions after the 880:

One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research, Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox...

2491:

Actually, as can be seen above and in the three archives for this page as well, it has been used in that way for quite awhile (from at least January 2006) with no particular harm.

3341:

For clarity, I will break my response into two sections, so that other editors can also reply in those sections, as it seems to be two independent issues that you have brought up.

2970: 922:

is the proper place for this, no? If several other editors have already explained to me that it's ok for me to be repeatedly attacked by Tarage, please just point that out to me?

4361:

The process is billed as informal, so attempts to create these lists and alter the Cats and Templates look like ways of bringing more formality to the process, but for what gain?

4226:

Cutting to the chase, regulars may add the category to their pages and other users who simply want the userbox won't appear in it. Two changes, one straightforward update. —

4008:

which, for good reasons, is an exclusive bunch, I think our criteria should be the lowest reasonable standard. As such, my recommendation for inclusion is "provided at least

3215:

if you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.

1245:. Can I request a third opinion? The conflict is in respect to another user disputing the justifications of my "claims" (contribution). I have provided a reference from the 944: 1211: 595: 4103:

was created two years ago. It grew from about fourteen active participants during the first few months to its bloated and relatively meaningless current condition which:

1127: 181:

Editor2020 attitude please come and check the details on farrukh38 talk page and try to justify. why did he do that? is there anybody who can help in this dispute.thanks

4358:

It requires a test. If I haven't offered an opinion for a week, 2 weeks, 2 months, when do I become inactive even if I still watch the page? What if I'm on a wikibreak?

1657:

essentially writes editor A is the dispute is wrong and editor B in the dispute is right, but these editors are not impartial to the topic or the editors involved per

3736:, and probable consider them to be simply "unkind" says a lot about how you view our policies. However, you may see it, they do breech a number of policies, such as 1424:. Disagreement about where to place this section in the articulate. Under the lead paragraph or inside the politics section. I would appreciate some third opinions -- 4158:

support a simple construct whereby anyone who needs to know who is really pitching in here can learn that by looking at one page. The category is not that page. —

2816:) on WeHaWoe's talk page, referred him to this discussion, and recommended that he post his dispute on Commons. I'll remove it from the active listings locally. — 3774:

Re Big Dunc, I asked TO editors for a third opinion. They gave it. Simple as that. No conspiracy, no subterfuge. COuld it be that they gave their honest opinions?

1734: 3677:

Hi, I asked for the Third Opinion and I randomly messaged Third Opinion editors (with whom I had no previous contact) from the list and asked for their opinions

1974: 2720:

Commons may have dispute resolution processes, which may or may not include a Third opinion procedure similar to this one, but I was not able to find them. —

2594:

is insufficient a standard notice box could be made, but some hue blinking monstrosity is not needed. #2 I also oppose (these days I'm actually more active at

4143:

fully with RegentsPark and BigDunc about the improprieties there. The chief contributory factor: one user "randomly messaged" editors found in the category,

3985:

many of these users who are in the category may have left Knowledge (XXG), requiring an administrator to remove the userbox(or ] tag) from their user page.

160:

but the relevent pages are also not there. i replied all his acguments that i have to change the page name , i changed the name . he said that it seems like

897:

edits almost exclusively on talk:911, and I have thousands of good edits to hundreds of articles. I'm not a troll, but Tarage keeps calling me one. If by

3748:, why not ask, or Third opinion editors might want to comment? You suggest I've been uncivil, why not provide a diff to support that accusation. Thanks, -- 561: 3509:. Currently, more than 140 users (many of whom I've rarely or never seen active in the project page history during the past two years) are linked there. 1126:

which are being moved around by editors to various renamed articles without discussion. You may have to browse for it! :( One of today's versions is at

293:

Some are, some aren't. Sometimes I've offered a 3rd opinion and it resolved the dispute instantly, and others generate discussion that drags on for weeks.

973:

It is now the oldiest one listed among the active third opinion request. Can we have volunteers taking a quick look at the issue and give their opinion?

3600:

I know of no other such list. In the category, JeremyMcCracken is in the "J" section and Calabraxthis in the "U" section. (Categories are affected by

89: 4445: 4433: 3213:, should not be canvassed for their opinions? Having filed a request, it should be a case of pot luck of which editor you get, with the proviso that " 1743: 1637: 513: 3922: 3921:

As EhJJ and Domer48 have pointed out as well, we need to distinguish between active participants in the project and "members" of the category. (See

3076:

Irs good to remeber thant Black Sabbath has 40 years, wich means than needed to sold only 2,5 million abuns per year to have today 100 million. Both

2881:

Update: a recent post by the party who asked for 3O involvement looks in line with the issue having been resolved. Well done by all involved imo. :)

2500: 2492: 81: 76: 64: 59: 3050: 883:

I've removed the listing itself, but I haven't got whatever it takes to explain to this user what several other editors have already explained. —

3744:. It is also consider to be a personal attack, when you make an accusation and don't back it up. Now your on the righ page for a third opinion on 3134: 3102: 1904:

he switched his arguments to 'who cares' and technical errors I was making in the posting process. I'm not sure how to link to the talk section (

1595: 3563:

page would be a good idea, and each project I think should have one. The trouble is it will probably be left to one active member to look after.

899:"One editor is clearly against consensus and several other policies and guidelines including neutrality, reliable sources, no original research" 1311: 4538: 3118:

How does we know than a source is reliable and another one is not? Isn't five sources enought? There is only one source against this fact...

2560:

dispute has been listed since 17:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC): more than ten days with no response, and it can't be blamed on this talk page. —

1489: 275: 2789: 2760: 1923: 555: 239: 298:

That one you referenced doesn't even qualify for a 3rd opinion request, because there are more than two editors involved in the bickering.

2224:

Hi all! I wondered what people thought to the idea of a new dispute resolution and mediator school? I have started a draft of some stuff

1630: 786: 465: 3168:

a very positive initiative and well worth supporting. It is for this reason, I would draw editors attention to my recent experience of

3029: 914:. But my only purpose here is a deliberate and measured escalation of dispute resolution procedures, re: Tarage calling me a troll. 507: 3470: 3410: 3260:

on an editors talk page, in the same section as the canvassed views already mentioned above. The comments can only be described as a

1144:

My request for a third party got lost during one of the moves. No point in attaching it to the article. It may not be there tomorrow!

1066:

is that it's not really obvious where the third opinion actually is. I usually bold mine, or make them into a separate subsection. —

366:

is attempting to solve the same dispute claiming to be a "new user", since when did new users jump into solving wikipedia disputes .

923: 806: 3187:

considered to be the issues on the article talk page. However, prior to this they had also canvassed other editors for their views

3560: 3249:

homework" "The so-called debate" "strikes me as POV sourced from POV masquerading vainly as objective analysis." This is not what

1773:

on how to proceed. Note that Eldereft didn't remove your request because of a technicality. He removed it because the dispute was

3699:

page antics. I'm sorry if he has found this unpleasant but I suggest he invest in a thicker skin if he wants to contribute to WP

2849: 2784:

I'd rather not get involved myself as I'm low on time and have had some interactions with some of the users involved. There is a

3929:

half dozen who are actively reviewing requests and responding to them, as compared to nearly one hundred fifty in the category.

2710: 4469: 4154:

support kicking people out of the category or denying legitimacy to the notion of "third opinions" in the generic sense, but I

3512:

I would very much like to see comments from others who are active in the project. I support the creation and maintenance of a

852: 847: 842: 837: 832: 827: 822: 817: 3444: 2207: 1238: 47: 17: 1827: 1756: 1739: 1730: 1130:. Yesterdays was at Catholicos of the East or the "east" whenever you happened to sign on. The prime editors seem to include 953: 3273: 3225: 2706: 2190: 2785: 4441: 2702: 2373:

that some of the sources constitute original research, and do not bear direct relevance to the living person in question.

1363:. Disagreement about the need to include a co-official language in the infobox. I would appreciate some third opinions. -- 1190: 4316: 4208: 4184: 4100: 3648:

I've found it a head-scratcher myself when checking the category during the past year or so! There is seriously almost

3569: 3559:

I know the difference between putting your name to a list and being an active member. The creation and maintenance of a

3506: 3366: 2946: 810: 579: 459: 3379: 2225: 2199: 4351:

3Oers pick a dispute from #Active disputes, at any point they might be active or inactive, both on en.wp and at WP:3O.

4312: 4215: 4191: 3362: 2845: 2744: 2714: 2159: 409:

I warned the user about 3RR; until the sockpuppetry case is approved, I think that good faith needs to be observed. —

107:; things get difficult in relation to the single-sentence in italics several paragraphs into the discussion. Thanks, 3447:. That said, there is a degree of quality assurance that we should try to maintain, so thanks for bringing this up. 1900:

out the goof. At first, he argued against the edit, but after I cited Knowledge (XXG)'s own definition of the term

320:

Ya, I generally look for topics that I have a chance of being able to constructively contribute to the conversation.

4465: 2859: 567: 531: 112: 38: 2598:

than here), there is no need for such a narrowly focused series of standardized warnings. #3 may be covered under

2446: 3051:

http://www.metal-archives.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42351&highlight=&sid=223ac726a08a0268d8a3012f70ab9ae1

2931: 2909: 2886: 2871: 1493: 1483: 1312:

Talk:Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay#This article is inappropriately constructed and I intend it of being split

4512:

would be something for you two to read right now. I never thought I would ever reference that essay, until now.

2755: 1919: 1451: 1360: 990: 967: 549: 519: 243: 4425: 3409:, and on point 2 it is very important to the project's open nature, and the Third opinions must be seen to be 2283:

Comment: - There's a bit of a neutrality concerns issue with the article and I invite external perspective --

1666: 3385:

That the subpage (or current category) be linked with an expressed warning against soliciting third opinions.

3295:

would be a good example. Editors who file for a third opinion should not approach individual participants in

4378: 3877: 3443:

guidelines. Generally, if you are displeased with a third opinion, it is best to seek additional avenues of

3435: 3040: 2747:) to take a look at it. Since he's an admin and a crat at Commons, he should know where to find everything. 2074: 2066: 1895:

Please forgive my syntax and such as I'm not a very experienced editor here. I posted a nugget over on the

790: 259: 2793: 1951: 1935: 1911: 782: 235: 197: 3242:

I appreciate that you are both serious editors making a genuine good faith attempt to improve this article

2654: 2649:

No need to affix big, bold signs: this is a peaceful, coffeehouse/lounge; open for discussion (not AN/I).

2144: 1441: 1380: 1346: 1296: 1260: 1123: 501: 325: 3044: 1915: 1676:

Just how robust is the two party guideline to potential editors who later comment, but aren't offering a

544: 4069: 2124: 1397:

the "primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors" aspect of this project. —

1219: 927: 108: 4020:, but there is no way to just verify a single editor. Just a proposal, certainly open to alternatives. 3473: 3233: 2696: 1184: 496: 161: 157: 4373:

I've suggested a template be used in the discussion below, and maybe that would be useful here, too?

4175:

We could simply remove the category from the template and remove the userbox from the category page.

3605: 3309:

who engage in the type of conduct cited above should be removed from the list of active Participants.

2994: 2959: 2927: 2905: 2882: 2867: 2675: 1804: 1710: 1699: 1689: 1479: 1135: 1122:

We need a third opinion or maybe admin intervention in stopping the movement of articles relating to

675: 483: 355: 3934: 3065: 2434: 2381: 190: 176: 4513: 4421: 4403: 4336: 4323: 4285: 4230: 4162: 3951:

the userbox to their userpage. It can be added and removed as the user has the time to give to the

3941: 3657: 3616: 3537: 3520: 3123: 3109: 3091: 3015: 2977: 2820: 2776: 2750: 2724: 2588: 2564: 2519: 2385: 2262: 2169: 2120: 1942: 1786: 1777:

and a third opinion would have made no sense any more. If you want to request a third opinion on a

1575: 1550: 1514: 1462: 1401: 1215: 1196: 1092: 1033: 1015: 997: 887: 838:

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#arbitrary subsection to make editing easier for all (Proposed edit)

633: 602: 400: 354:"The ip had a rationale, he was reverting a sockpuppet of a banned user, it is obvious as the user 186: 172: 2989:

I have now. I didn't go there first because strictly speaking it isn't a BLP. Thanks for advice.--

2692: 2107: 2047: 2039: 1852: 1180: 4374: 3157: 2627: 2539: 2466: 2412: 2299: 2236: 2070: 1999: 1822: 1751: 1165: 1150: 1131: 1105: 1052: 978: 957: 729: 471: 363: 310: 283: 255: 145: 4553: 4529: 4500: 4473: 4406: 4382: 4339: 4326: 4288: 4275: 4257: 4233: 4165: 4099:

It's funny how a thing can assume the appearance of institutional validity merely by existing.

4074: 4039:

Do not post messages about this 3O request anywhere other than here and on the article talk page

4028: 3993: 3971: 3944: 3910: 3889: 3870: 3849: 3833: 3816: 3800: 3783: 3763: 3737: 3708: 3660: 3643: 3619: 3595: 3540: 3523: 3491: 3455: 3428: 3399: 3349: 3329: 3302:

Participants having offered an opinion should follow this up by responding to issues they raise.

3269: 3229: 3149: 3127: 3112: 3095: 3018: 2998: 2980: 2963: 2935: 2913: 2890: 2875: 2853: 2823: 2812:

Now that we know (thanks, Giggy) that Commons does have dispute resolution processes, I posted (

2805: 2779: 2767: 2727: 2679: 2658: 2639: 2609: 2567: 2551: 2522: 2478: 2416: 2389: 2358: 2265: 2248: 2172: 2148: 2128: 2100: 2078: 2055: 2020: 2003: 1987: 1960: 1945: 1927: 1885: 1865: 1832: 1808: 1790: 1761: 1714: 1578: 1553: 1541: 1517: 1465: 1445: 1430: 1404: 1384: 1369: 1350: 1323: 1300: 1285: 1264: 1223: 1169: 1154: 1109: 1095: 1077: 1056: 1036: 1018: 1000: 982: 961: 931: 890: 794: 754: 739:

Sounds like it's less of a content dispute and more of an editor's actions. Have you considered

733: 708: 679: 664: 636: 605: 440: 420: 403: 329: 315: 287: 263: 247: 211: 133: 116: 122:

I see you've got an RfC for that article, and I think that will prove more useful than a 3O. —

4496: 4250: 4107:

1) lends an appearance of transparency while having almost nothing to do with the project, and

4046: 3964: 3903: 3885: 3863: 3845: 3831: 3812: 3798: 3779: 3756: 3723: 3704: 3636: 3588: 3484: 3421: 3322: 2650: 2351: 2327: 2140: 2093: 2051: 2043: 1452:

Talk:Valencian Community#Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox

1437: 1376: 1361:

Talk:Valencian Community#Third opinion request: Removal of the spanish spelling in the infobox

1342: 1292: 1275: 1256: 1067: 877:

editors involved on the article talk page and it is clearly beyond the scope of this project.

813:, has twice added a WP:3O listing about disputes on a 9/11 talk page, linking the following: 744: 654: 430: 410: 321: 201: 149: 123: 4370:

So, mainly, what's the reason for wanting and going to the effort of maintaining such a list?

3925:

for the January 2007 discussion which resulted in the creation of the category and userbox.)

2599: 2396: 1207: 818:

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The Appropriateness Of Subject Heading "Conspiracy Theories."

4546: 4064: 2689:

This is the first time this has happened, and I wonder what's the best way to deal with it.

2606: 2014: 1896: 1799:

With all do respect, I strongly believe Averell23 has at least confused me with Eldereft. --

1319: 1139: 1085: 1063: 867: 862: 857: 453: 371: 4509: 4488: 4480: 3745: 3741: 3733: 3261: 3039:

is still saying than it has sold only 50 million copies. I showed him claimed sources from

2951: 2841: 2632: 2595: 2544: 2471: 2400: 2241: 2046:) 03:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)}} Have I added the Third opinion template successfully? - 1456:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Catalan-speaking Countries/Official denomination in the infobox

943:

An involved editor just pointed out to me that the wide-ranging issues under discussion at

740: 720: 594:

I found the whole thing rather nightmarish :-/ By the way, the article has been listed at

254:

Note- I have commented on the users talk page, and I reverted my mistake almost instantly.

4458:

I would like your opinion, and, if it's possible, to protect these templates against IPs.

2990: 2955: 2897: 2801: 2738: 2671: 2314:

that there are concerns (which are, for the most part wrong), the substance of the DYK is

1800: 1722: 1706: 1695: 1685: 1534: 704: 671: 196:

Um.. I'm not quite sure what's going on, but it looks like the main discussion is over at

4484: 4014: 3556: 3378:

We do what most other Wikiprojects do, and that is to create a list of active editors at

3370: 3138: 2404: 2111: 1271: 919: 915: 4399:"Law scholars analyze Knowledge (XXG)'s dispute resolution system" item interesting. — 3055: 2788:, though I'm not sure if it's that active; most discussions otherwise take place on the 1212:

Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editor on Webby Awards

4400: 4333: 4320: 4282: 4273: 4239: 4227: 4159: 4026: 3991: 3938: 3654: 3625: 3613: 3552: 3534: 3517: 3453: 3397: 3347: 3147: 3119: 3106: 3087: 3071: 3012: 2974: 2923: 2817: 2773: 2721: 2561: 2516: 2259: 2166: 2038:

Disagreement on note about another use of the name of the article and related issues. -

1939: 1782: 1652:

process could then be too readily disrupted. If such process pertubations can bring a

1572: 1547: 1511: 1459: 1425: 1421: 1398: 1390: 1364: 1089: 1030: 1012: 994: 884: 630: 599: 397: 182: 168: 4005: 3952: 3771:

is in no way a personal attack. It's a comment on your edits. There is a difference.

3466: 3306: 3296: 3288: 3277: 3265: 3250: 3237: 3210: 3169: 3165: 2796:(or a comment on either of those boards asking for attention at a certain talk page). 1856: 1848: 1681: 1677: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1626: 1619: 4042: 3036: 2622: 2534: 2461: 2408: 2291: 2231: 2035: 1995: 1983: 1956: 1881: 1861: 1670: 1669:

to one editor and ILIKEIT to the other. That is what happened in the case involving

1641: 1161: 1146: 1101: 1048: 974: 949: 725: 305: 279: 2139:

This is a pretty good idea. It seems like I missed the boat on discussion though....

4492: 4244: 4051: 3958: 3897: 3881: 3857: 3841: 3825: 3808: 3792: 3775: 3750: 3717: 3700: 3630: 3582: 3573: 3478: 3415: 3316: 3180: 2557: 2344: 2320: 2255: 2087: 1203: 3193:

on the discussion. Having filed the request, Jdorney then approaches two editors,

3080:

and amazon.com]] are realy good sources. Thank you and sorry for my english. Both

1088:

was a good contribution, Eve Hall. I added a Third opinion subsection heading. —

770:

The editor there will not include how the the models were created for the film.

278:. Wow! Is that typical? I don't have the energy to deal with something like that. 224:

Hi, please look at the warning user Steve Crossin issued me! I just edited a page

4211:. If you support this project and find it useful, you are encouraged to add the 2531:

I merely wonder if sometimes other business gets lost in the dispute discussion?

4541: 3035:

Black Sabbath has just sold more than 100 million copies worldwide. However the

2603: 2582:

conversation resembling that, but nothing even remotely resembling a "takeover".

1901: 1661:

guidelines nor are their comments using much judicial judgement/discernment per

1315: 448: 383:

This relates to edit warring on List of Geordies and Talk:List of Geordies ...

367: 46:

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

4479:

To get the templates protected against IPs you would need to make a request at

3201:

who he said were listed on Third opinion though I can't see this list myself.

1492:) offered a personal rather than encyclopedic third opinion a few hours ago on 445:

That seems to be typical of these edit warriors. At least three were blocked:

4315:

links 128 userpages and there are 62 userpages (compared to more than 140) in

4041:

at the bottom of the 'How to list a dispute' section. Finally, the message on

2797: 2734: 1615: 1528: 993:

section as well) I think that the WP:3O request should simply be withdrawn. —

700: 3236:

way. In my opinion, the views did not measure up to the criteria outlined on

1160:

I was wrong. Located request intact. Still may need help with movers though.

4348:

As a late comer to this debate, I just thought I'd point out the following:

4268: 4021: 4017:(which they would do when "taking" a listed dispute) in the past two months 3986: 3462: 3448: 3406: 3392: 3342: 3240:. I would be reminded of a comment by Calabraxthis in their opinion later, " 3142: 1414: 1356:

Disagreement about the need to include a co-official language in the infobox

1242: 1241:

but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. The article in question is on the

1230: 809:(12:31, 1 April - 08:49, 2 April 2008 UTC contribs), who is apparently user 358:

attempted to solve the geordie dispute and got banned for sockpuppetry, see

218: 104: 3137:

and a third opinion will hopefully be added soon. See our instructions at

1905: 1436:

This one also has been added to the list of disputes on the project page.

4444:, he thinks red must be the color of the templates. But isn't so simple: 3728:

What Third opinion Editor are you talking about? That you don't consider

3133:

This is not the place to discuss this issue. Discussion should remain at

3060: 2837: 2028: 1251: 1246: 152: 380:

I have forwarded it here for attention from other project volunteers.

148:

has not the same text even then first atttatched to that. replied about

1876: 4448:. I think my reasons are more rational and better explained than his. 2069:

to resolve a potential edit war over content and deletion of content.

1746:

had unquestionably been addressed by multiple outside parties. I even

1622:

request--can that still reasonably be considered a two party dispute?

1458:, where at least five editors are participating in the discussion. — 1334: 3684:. I also previously asked a number of other users for their opinions 3172:

which in my opinion undermine the very role it sets out to achieve.

2926:

is taking time to understand. I'll report back on these cases later.

2919: 2155:

The "suggestion on the WP:3O page" is simply the transclusion of the

1750:

on your talkpage when I noticed that you had re-added the request. -

1631:

Talk:Religion and science community#Why is this article in existence?

3923:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion/Archive 1#Userbox or Wikiproject?

2407:

is explicitly for disputes between just two editors, not two sides.

4093:

b) other users who occasionally offer neutral opinions in disputes.

4084:

1) make this project as it actually functions more transparent, and

765: 4116:

b) generic support of the utility of neutral opinions in disputes.

4054:

that the opinion (whatever its merits) is effectively compromised.

2285: 1781:

dispute, feel free to do so, but be specific about what you want.

1338: 3066:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_albums_have_black_sabbath_sold

823:

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Can we move towards unprotection?

4135:

providing a neutral third opinion of their own from time to time

2369: 2036:

Talk:Gaogouli#Why remove the note about another use of 高句麗: 高句麗縣

912:

assertions which are impossible to know the truth or falsity of'

3369:

on the main page. While I think this was intended to help the

3276:. This type of conduct can only have an adverse effect on the 3081: 3077: 225: 25: 4303:

Currently, since the template was removed from the category (

4183:

If you provide third opinions, you are encouraged to add the

1735:

Talk:Relationship between religion and science#Merge proposal

1727:

Dispute over the existence of talk page's main-space article.

848:

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposal to unprotect and act

843:

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#The United Nations Resolution

274:

I thought I might like to help out at 3o so I took a look at

1891:

Misuse of the term "anniversary" on WWE Wrestlemania 25 page

1644:

claims that this dispute has since been settled outside the

360:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for checkuser/Case/Gregs the baker‎

4013:

tool will show which users have made at least two edits to

4491:, since you're both on the limits of that at the moment. 3628:, I was scratching my head there for a minute. Thanks, -- 1648:

process. But that doesn't make sense to me, because the

276:

Talk:List of road-related terminology#What a neologism is

3895:

Without Diff's, editors do draw their own conclusions.--

1847:

Hi all! I notice that there are only 2 disputes left on

1507:). I posted on the talk page and relisted the dispute. 773:

This is very relevant , yet he seems to think it's not.

4308: 4304: 3769: 3729: 3689: 3687: 3685: 3682: 3680: 3678: 3577: 3292: 3257: 3245: 3221: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3188: 3176: 2840:

request was a duplicate of one that already appears at

2813: 2512: 2504: 2496: 2215: 2211: 2203: 2195: 2009: 1747: 1634: 1604: 1600: 1565: 1523: 1504: 1500: 1497: 1314:, as the discussion has been removed from the 3O list. 1200: 1026: 1008: 626: 585: 573: 537: 525: 489: 477: 426: 393: 343: 3533:(Re-thinking this, see "Simpler solution?" below.) — 1341:. Maybe we all can add to the article in a consensus? 596:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of Geordies

140:

about deletion and redirect of AL-kitab as per Qur'an.

4412:

Russia national football team templates - edition war

3135:

Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Black Sabbath

3103:

Talk:List of best-selling music artists#Black Sabbath

3070:

Only in US, Black Sabbath has sold 57 million copies

3056:

http://geekzkrieg.com/top-10-influential-metal-bands/

1625:

To make this request concrete, the dispute listed on

4487:

page. I'd also ask you both to be careful about the

3264:

and goes directly counter to the stated position of

2132:

message also posted at MEDCAB and dispute resolution

4129:

regularly checking the list of active disagreements

4122:Editors who add themselves to the category without 1877:

Talk:Paul_Gustafson#Article_requires_some_attention

1062:Heh, sure. One thing I'd say about your comment on 945:

Talk:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam

776:Couple of persons edits have been removed by him. 4307:) and the category was removed from the template ( 2600:Knowledge (XXG):TALK#How to use article talk pages 1855:has a couple also. It's the same sort of thing as 653:What a mess. I guess it's all worked out now... — 4281:this, citing this page in the edit summaries. — 4138:updating the page with informative edit summaries 3232:on both sides of the dispute, and presented in a 2368:I am engaged in a dispute with another editor on 1389:As there are six or more editors involved in the 1270:I've added a listing on the main project page at 1128:Catholicos of The East and Malankara Metropolitan 828:Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Please edit this: 3572:, because Calabraxthis is not on that list, and 3105:. I listed the dispute on the project page. — 2711:commons:Template talk:Pink CC#CC-by or CC-by-sa? 2709:dispute to the project page (it is discussed on 906:without a reliable source. I'm against stating 4397:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2009-03-16/In the news 4207:Active contributors to this project are in the 4147:, to solicit opinions in support of his view.) 3291:should ignore attempts to canvass their views. 3283:What I would suggest to address this issue is; 2008:Just adding another voice of agreement. I have 1973:A new dispute has been posted to the main page 1859:but with more people involved. Take a look :-) 1450:There are four or more editors involved in the 1375:I added these to the list on the project page. 219:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Steve_Crossin 200:, so you should discuss your problems there. — 4395:Editors who participate in WP:3O may find the 3256:To follow up on this Calabraxthis then offers 939:Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam 4090:a) those who participate in this project, and 3580:]. So are you sure there is no other list? -- 2922:, though I believe this is largely resolved. 2289:-- before it gets featured as a DYK. Cheers, 1906:http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:WrestleMania_XXV 1821:The thinko is fixed now (thanks, Averell). - 833:Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Proposed edit 8: 4110:2) obscuring any useful distinction between 3561:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion/Active members 3367:category of users who provide third opinions 2842:WP:RSN#Iraq War / Status of Forces Agreement 1393:dispute, I have removed the project listing 3933:page may properly be maintained. (I'm not 1633:. The article content is completely unique 1337:article? I pretty much just want to have a 1274:. Someone should be by soon to help out. — 1199:) has just added a "fourth opinion" request 425:The user reverted my addition; the diff is 4242:that's a practical solution, nice work. -- 2715:commons:User talk:WeHaWoe#Pink CC + v.Gogh 1237:Hello. I am presently trying to implement 4332:Now 133 (template) and 30 (category). — 3568:I don't think the "list" mentioned meant 3084:and amazon.com]] are realy good sources. 3043:, the world's biggets Mmusic channel and 2971:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard 2685:Wikimedia Commons template dispute listed 2441:what this page is for. This talk page is 2065:I respectfully request assistance at the 1875:Hi all! I took a look a the dispute here 1744:Relationship between religion and science 1638:Relationship between religion and science 1310:I would appreciate some more comments on 1202:in his long-running battle to defame the 779:Please remove the editor for that page. 3280:process and the confidence of editors. 3047:. Many other souyrces can be find here: 2445:for discussing improvements to the page 766:http://en.wikipedia.org/Transformer_film 4426:Russia national football team templates 4267:page. Generally, that is frowned upon. 3356:Canvasing/Soliciting on User talk pages 1413:"Legal Status within Spain" section in 4391:Signpost item about dispute resolution 3061:http://www.discogs.com/popular_artists 2191:User talk:Fr33kman/New mediator school 1422:Talk:Catalonia#Legal Status with Spain 1391:Talk:Catalonia#Legal Status with Spain 1306:Talk:Real-time vs. turn-based gameplay 968:Talk:Persian Mesopotamia#THIRD OPINION 853:Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Signed 144:Editor2020 has changed the page name. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4416:Please, I'm in a edition war (what I 3937:today, else I'd have created it.) — 3224:. The third opinion process requires 2364:Question About Reliability Of Sources 918:suggests I ask for a third opinion. 7: 4087:2) clarify the distinction between: 3505:The "list" mentioned probably meant 2310:Nonsense. While Jaak is entitled to 2034:Hi! I'd like to seek Third opinion. 226:http://en.wikipedia.org/Vichy_France 4080:I think the intention here is to: 2969:Have you considered posting on the 2790:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard 2584:Anyway, suggestion #1 I oppose, if 1851:. Just to let you know the list on 1494:Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima#POV again 4317:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 4209:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 4185:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 4178:The project page currently reads: 4101:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 3570:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 3507:Category:Third opinion Wikipedians 3164:Let me start by saying I consider 3030:List of best-selling music artists 2272:As per the request of another user 1571:Oh well, at least he was told. — 1239:Knowledge (XXG):Dispute resolution 1029:) it wasn't what he wanted ... — 24: 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Third opinion 1702:) 23:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC) ‎ 1692:) 21:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 1587:Guideline clarification requested 1568:everything but a welcome message. 167:no control here on administrator 98:How strict on "only two editors"? 4453:"Russia wears red, and thats it" 4420:to do) with a IP user, probably 3876:Whatever Domer. Mods, check out 1843:Additional disputes needing help 1665:. Such editors are just saying 1636:, none of it was taken from the 1454:dispute. It has since moved to 1176:What to do about a process fork? 29: 3880:and draw your own conclusions. 3673:Canvassing and personal attacks 3476:way. It's just a suggestion. -- 3101:The above apparently refers to 2941:Minor dispute regarding policy. 4539:discussion on the same subject 4424:, about the correct colors of 2101:20:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 2079:20:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC) 2056:04:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC) 2021:13:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC) 2004:17:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1988:07:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1961:05:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1950:I've posted an opinion to the 1946:04:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1928:04:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 1886:13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC) 1866:15:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC) 1833:14:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC) 1742:should exist independently of 1740:Religion and science community 1731:Religion and science community 1210:/ forum shop of an AN/I case, 374:) 20:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)" 1: 4442:Russia national football team 4126:watchlisting the project page 3253:is all about in my opinion. 2936:02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 2914:02:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 2891:04:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC) 2876:02:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 2854:00:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 1809:19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 1791:18:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 1762:13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC) 1715:23:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC) 351:Knowledge (XXG):Third opinion 4289:21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4276:17:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4258:13:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4234:10:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4166:10:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4113:a) project participants, and 4075:03:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 4029:01:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 3994:01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 3972:01:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 3945:00:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 3911:22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3890:22:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3871:22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3850:21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3834:21:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3817:21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3801:21:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3790:to be an impartial opinion? 3784:21:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3764:21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3709:20:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3661:20:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3644:19:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3620:19:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3596:19:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3541:11:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 3524:19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3492:19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3456:18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3429:19:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3400:18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3350:18:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3330:17:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 3150:15:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 3128:00:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC) 3113:00:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) 3096:21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC) 2947:Adult Children of Alcoholics 2824:09:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 2806:08:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 2786:Commons:Disputes noticeboard 2780:05:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 2768:04:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 2728:04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 2680:18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 2659:16:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 2640:13:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 2610:02:35, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 2568:05:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 2552:21:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 2523:21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 2479:19:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 2417:00:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 2390:00:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC) 2179:Proposal for mediator school 1503:) and delisted the dispute ( 1474:Relisted active disagreement 270:Wow! Are they all like this? 4313:Template:User Third opinion 4197:userbox) to your user page. 3465:, and could I suggest that 3019:10:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 2999:06:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) 2981:23:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2964:22:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2860:National Broadband Network‎ 2359:00:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC) 2334:14:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 2305:09:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 2266:15:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 2249:01:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 1579:05:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC) 1554:22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1542:20:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1518:20:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) 1466:04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 1446:14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 1431:11:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 1405:04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 1385:14:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 1370:11:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC) 1351:21:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC) 4569: 4554:17:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 4530:00:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 4501:23:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 4474:21:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 4407:05:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 4221:userbox to your user page. 3695:complaint he could have. 3434:Third opinion provided on 2423:Taking back this talk page 2173:19:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2149:13:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 2129:18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 1936:Talk:WrestleMania XXV#Date 1324:05:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC) 1301:23:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1286:22:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1265:21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC) 1170:13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1155:12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC) 1110:15:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 1096:22:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 1078:15:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 1057:11:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) 1037:05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 1019:20:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 1001:20:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 932:08:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 795:23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 755:16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 734:15:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 709:00:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 680:15:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 665:13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 637:00:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 606:23:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 441:21:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 421:21:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 404:21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 342:The following was posted ( 330:18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC) 316:00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 288:00:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 264:19:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 248:18:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 212:13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 191:13:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 177:13:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 134:23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 117:22:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 4327:01:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC) 3220:My second concern is the 2380:Thank you for your help. 983:20:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 962:06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 891:13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 346:) on my user talk page: 4549:(bring on the trumpets!) 4383:11:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 4202:This might better read: 4132:following their progress 3917:Active participants page 3156:Respondents feedback on 1614:One particular editor ( 1333:Hi, could you help with 1224:23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC) 4340:12:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC) 4145:which we do not oversee 3878:Talk:Dunmanway Massacre 3474:civil and nonjudgmental 3436:Talk:Dunmanway Massacre 3234:civil and nonjudgmental 2918:PS I continue to watch 2067:Ulster Defence Regiment 2061:Ulster Defence Regiment 868:User talk:Tarage#WP:NPA 396:for recent reverts. — 4224: 4200: 4187:(with the option of a 3578:their name on "a" list 2846:GetLinkPrimitiveParams 2832:Iraq War merged to RSN 2340: 1871:Paul Gustafson dispute 1124:Catholicos of the east 863:User talk:Tarage#Troll 858:User talk:Pedant#Troll 378: 362:, and his new account 4436:) in the discussion. 4204: 4180: 3222:Third opinion offered 2279: 1725:, your request read " 694:what is third opinion 348: 198:Talk:Al-kitab (Quran) 42:of past discussions. 3380:WP:3O/Active members 3293:User:JeremyMcCracken 3195:User:JeremyMcCracken 3011:You are welcome. — 2794:Commons:Village pump 1136:User talk:Lijujacobk 356:User:Gregs the baker 3557:member of a project 3361:We have links to a 2705:) recently added a 1329:Talk:Sense of time. 1011:) as requested. — 364:User:Waterwater212‎ 4466:Caio Brandão Costa 4446:see the discussion 4247: 4216:User Third opinion 4192:User Third opinion 4047:User: Calabraxthis 3961: 3900: 3860: 3830: 3797: 3753: 3722: 3633: 3585: 3497:Further discussion 3481: 3445:dispute resolution 3418: 3319: 3246:offered a response 3158:Dunmanway Massacre 2954:?. Many thanks. -- 2456:(welcome from ALL) 2160:dispute-resolution 2090: 1132:User talk:Arunvroy 394:WP:3O page history 146:islamic holy books 4550: 4489:three revert rule 4245: 4171:Simpler solution? 4073: 3959: 3956:my suggestion. -- 3898: 3858: 3824: 3791: 3751: 3716: 3631: 3611: 3583: 3479: 3416: 3317: 3274:Assume good faith 3199:User:Calabraxthis 3183:setting out what 2707:Wikimedia Commons 2395:I think you want 2356: 2332: 2088: 1986: 1959: 1914:comment added by 1884: 1864: 1831: 1760: 1729:"; this page was 1718: 1703: 1610: 1609: 1540: 797: 785:comment added by 624: 388: 314: 250: 238:comment added by 162:Islamic Holy book 158:islamic hjlybooks 139: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4560: 4551: 4548: 4544: 4526: 4520: 4516: 4256: 4220: 4214: 4196: 4190: 4067: 4045:'s talk page by 3970: 3909: 3869: 3828: 3795: 3762: 3720: 3642: 3610: 3604: 3601: 3594: 3551:Thanks for that 3490: 3461:Thanks for that 3427: 3338:Comments by EhJJ 3328: 3305:Participants in 3287:Participants in 2763: 2758: 2753: 2635: 2630: 2625: 2593: 2587: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2474: 2469: 2464: 2447:WP:Third opinion 2355: 2352: 2349: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2294: 2244: 2239: 2234: 2220: 2219: 2164: 2158: 2099: 2017: 1982: 1955: 1930: 1897:Wrestlemania XXV 1880: 1860: 1825: 1754: 1748:explained myself 1733:. Discussion at 1705:revised again -- 1704: 1693: 1608: 1607:3 hours later. 1601:removal of entry 1593: 1546:Awesome :-) — 1539: 1537: 1531: 1526: 1282: 1279: 1229:What to do with 1140:User talk:Stifle 1074: 1071: 1064:Talk:North Korea 780: 761:Transformer Film 751: 748: 661: 658: 629:) your post. — 620: 589: 562:deleted contribs 541: 514:deleted contribs 493: 466:deleted contribs 437: 434: 417: 414: 387: 308: 233: 208: 205: 130: 127: 109:Nomoskedasticity 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4568: 4567: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4559: 4558: 4557: 4547: 4542: 4525: 4522: 4517: 4514: 4414: 4393: 4301: 4253: 4243: 4218: 4212: 4194: 4188: 4173: 3967: 3957: 3919: 3906: 3896: 3866: 3856: 3826: 3793: 3759: 3749: 3734:personal attack 3718: 3675: 3639: 3629: 3608: 3602: 3591: 3581: 3576:says they seen 3499: 3487: 3477: 3439: 3424: 3414: 3358: 3325: 3315: 3268:not to mention 3262:personal attack 3162: 3033: 2945:In the article 2943: 2928:Alastair Haines 2906:Alastair Haines 2901: 2898:User:Beeblebrox 2883:Alastair Haines 2868:Alastair Haines 2863: 2834: 2761: 2756: 2751: 2687: 2667: 2665:Open disclaimer 2633: 2628: 2623: 2591: 2585: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2507:) ~ 83 kb, and 2472: 2467: 2462: 2453: 2425: 2366: 2353: 2345: 2329: 2321: 2292: 2274: 2256:user talk links 2242: 2237: 2232: 2193: 2189: 2181: 2162: 2156: 2133: 2116: 2096: 2086: 2063: 2032: 2015: 1971: 1909: 1893: 1873: 1845: 1684:guidelines? -- 1605:its re-addition 1589: 1535: 1529: 1527: 1480:Tutthoth-Ankhre 1476: 1419: 1358: 1331: 1308: 1280: 1277: 1235: 1178: 1120: 1072: 1069: 1045: 971: 941: 803: 763: 749: 746: 716: 696: 659: 656: 547: 499: 451: 435: 432: 415: 412: 340: 272: 222: 206: 203: 142: 128: 125: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4566: 4564: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4523: 4413: 4410: 4392: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4371: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4359: 4356: 4352: 4343: 4342: 4300: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4261: 4260: 4251: 4172: 4169: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4114: 4108: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4091: 4085: 4078: 4077: 4061: 4056: 4055: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3975: 3974: 3965: 3918: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3904: 3874: 3873: 3864: 3837: 3836: 3804: 3803: 3757: 3730:these comments 3726: 3725: 3674: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3637: 3624:Ye see it now 3589: 3565: 3564: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3498: 3495: 3485: 3459: 3458: 3438: 3432: 3422: 3403: 3402: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3375: 3374: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3339: 3334: 3323: 3311: 3310: 3303: 3300: 3258:these opinions 3161: 3160:Third opinion. 3154: 3153: 3152: 3116: 3115: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 2984: 2983: 2942: 2939: 2924:Triple goddess 2900: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2862: 2857: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2772:Excellent. — 2686: 2683: 2666: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2613: 2612: 2583: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2526: 2525: 2499:) is ~ 75 kb, 2488: 2487: 2451: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2370:this talk page 2365: 2362: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2180: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2131: 2115: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2094: 2062: 2059: 2031: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2006: 1979: 1978: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1916:Philliplybrand 1892: 1889: 1872: 1869: 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1794: 1793: 1771:judgement call 1765: 1764: 1667:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1603:yesterday and 1588: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1569: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1427:MauritiusXXVII 1418: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1366:MauritiusXXVII 1357: 1354: 1330: 1327: 1307: 1304: 1291:Thanks a lot. 1289: 1288: 1234: 1227: 1177: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1119: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1081: 1080: 1044: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1022: 1021: 1004: 1003: 991:Requested move 970: 965: 940: 937: 936: 935: 871: 870: 865: 860: 855: 850: 845: 840: 835: 830: 825: 820: 802: 799: 762: 759: 758: 757: 715: 712: 695: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 682: 644: 643: 642: 641: 640: 639: 613: 612: 611: 610: 609: 608: 592: 591: 590: 545:86.148.189.191 542: 494: 390: 389: 375: 353: 339: 338:Forwarded post 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 300: 299: 295: 294: 271: 268: 267: 266: 240:122.161.155.10 221: 216: 215: 214: 141: 138: 137: 136: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4565: 4556: 4555: 4552: 4545: 4540: 4531: 4528: 4527: 4519: 4511: 4507: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4498: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4462: 4459: 4456: 4454: 4449: 4447: 4443: 4437: 4435: 4429: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4411: 4409: 4408: 4405: 4402: 4398: 4390: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4375:Bigger digger 4372: 4369: 4363: 4360: 4357: 4353: 4350: 4349: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4341: 4338: 4335: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4325: 4322: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4298: 4290: 4287: 4284: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4274: 4272: 4271: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4254: 4248: 4241: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4232: 4229: 4223: 4222: 4217: 4210: 4203: 4199: 4198: 4193: 4186: 4179: 4176: 4170: 4168: 4167: 4164: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4148: 4146: 4137: 4134: 4131: 4128: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4115: 4112: 4111: 4109: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4102: 4092: 4089: 4088: 4086: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4076: 4071: 4066: 4065:Regent's Park 4062: 4058: 4057: 4053: 4048: 4044: 4043:User:Red King 4040: 4036: 4035: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4024: 4019: 4016: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3989: 3983: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3968: 3962: 3954: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3943: 3940: 3936: 3930: 3926: 3924: 3916: 3912: 3908: 3907: 3901: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3872: 3868: 3867: 3861: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3835: 3832: 3829: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3802: 3799: 3796: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3772: 3770: 3766: 3765: 3761: 3760: 3754: 3747: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3724: 3721: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3696: 3692: 3690: 3688: 3686: 3683: 3681: 3679: 3672: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3651: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3641: 3640: 3634: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3607: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3586: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3542: 3539: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3515: 3510: 3508: 3503: 3496: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3482: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3457: 3454: 3452: 3451: 3446: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3433: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3419: 3412: 3408: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3395: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3348: 3346: 3345: 3340: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3326: 3320: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3252: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3202: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3175:A report was 3173: 3171: 3167: 3166:Third Opinion 3159: 3155: 3151: 3148: 3146: 3145: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3114: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3083: 3079: 3074: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3048: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3031: 3028: 3020: 3017: 3014: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2982: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2948: 2940: 2938: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2899: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2861: 2858: 2856: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2831: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2778: 2775: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2759: 2754: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2718: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2684: 2682: 2681: 2677: 2673: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2647: 2646: 2641: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2631: 2626: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2611: 2608: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2590: 2581: 2577: 2576: 2569: 2566: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2543: 2538: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2524: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2470: 2465: 2457: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435:Third opinion 2432: 2428: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2378: 2374: 2371: 2363: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2350: 2348: 2335: 2333: 2326: 2324: 2315: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2300: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2288: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2278: 2271: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2227: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2192: 2187: 2178: 2174: 2171: 2168: 2165:template. — 2161: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2097: 2091: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2071:The Thunderer 2068: 2060: 2058: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2011: 2007: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1976: 1968: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1907: 1903: 1898: 1890: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1870: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1842: 1834: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1767: 1766: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1701: 1697: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1680:or following 1679: 1674: 1672: 1671:User:Eldereft 1668: 1664: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1642:User:Eldereft 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1597: 1586: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1555: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1538: 1532: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1508: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1488: 1485: 1481: 1473: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1428: 1423: 1416: 1412: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1362: 1355: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1328: 1326: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1305: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1273: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1253: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1232: 1228: 1226: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1206:. This is a 1205: 1201: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1186: 1182: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1118:Moving target 1117: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1100:Thanks guys! 1099: 1098: 1097: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1042: 1038: 1035: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023: 1020: 1017: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1002: 999: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 984: 980: 976: 969: 966: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 946: 938: 934: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 900: 895: 894: 893: 892: 889: 886: 881: 878: 876: 869: 866: 864: 861: 859: 856: 854: 851: 849: 846: 844: 841: 839: 836: 834: 831: 829: 826: 824: 821: 819: 816: 815: 814: 812: 808: 800: 798: 796: 792: 788: 787:70.243.74.186 784: 777: 774: 771: 768: 767: 760: 756: 753: 752: 742: 738: 737: 736: 735: 731: 727: 722: 713: 711: 710: 706: 702: 693: 681: 677: 673: 668: 667: 666: 663: 662: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 638: 635: 632: 628: 623: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 607: 604: 601: 597: 593: 587: 584: 581: 578: 575: 572: 569: 566: 563: 560: 557: 554: 551: 546: 543: 539: 536: 533: 530: 527: 524: 521: 518: 515: 512: 509: 506: 503: 498: 495: 491: 488: 485: 482: 479: 476: 473: 470: 467: 464: 461: 458: 455: 450: 447: 446: 444: 443: 442: 439: 438: 428: 424: 423: 422: 419: 418: 408: 407: 406: 405: 402: 399: 395: 386: 385: 384: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 352: 347: 345: 337: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 317: 312: 307: 302: 301: 297: 296: 292: 291: 290: 289: 285: 281: 277: 269: 265: 261: 257: 256:Steve Crossin 253: 252: 251: 249: 245: 241: 237: 229: 227: 220: 217: 213: 210: 209: 199: 195: 194: 193: 192: 188: 184: 179: 178: 174: 170: 165: 163: 159: 154: 151: 147: 135: 132: 131: 121: 120: 119: 118: 114: 110: 106: 97: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4536: 4521: 4518: 4505: 4463: 4460: 4457: 4452: 4450: 4438: 4430: 4417: 4415: 4394: 4302: 4269: 4249: 4225: 4206: 4205: 4201: 4182: 4181: 4177: 4174: 4155: 4151: 4149: 4144: 4141: 4121: 4098: 4079: 4070:Boating Lake 4052:User:BigDunc 4038: 4022: 4009: 3987: 3982:occasionally 3981: 3963: 3931: 3927: 3920: 3902: 3875: 3862: 3838: 3805: 3773: 3767: 3755: 3727: 3697: 3693: 3676: 3649: 3635: 3587: 3574:User:Jdorney 3513: 3511: 3504: 3500: 3483: 3460: 3449: 3420: 3404: 3393: 3343: 3333: 3321: 3312: 3282: 3255: 3241: 3219: 3214: 3206: 3203: 3184: 3181:User:Jdorney 3174: 3163: 3143: 3117: 3086: 3075: 3069: 3064: 3059: 3054: 3049: 3034: 2944: 2917: 2902: 2864: 2835: 2752:bibliomaniac 2749: 2748: 2741: 2719: 2699: 2691: 2688: 2668: 2651:Lazulilasher 2621: 2620: 2579: 2533: 2532: 2508: 2484: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2442: 2438: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2379: 2375: 2367: 2346: 2341: 2322: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2290: 2284: 2282: 2275: 2230: 2229: 2223: 2185: 2184: 2182: 2141:Lazulilasher 2117: 2114:streamlining 2092: 2064: 2033: 2013: 1972: 1938:listed.) — 1894: 1874: 1846: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1726: 1675: 1624: 1613: 1594: 1592: 1590: 1509: 1486: 1477: 1438:Lazulilasher 1426: 1420: 1394: 1377:Lazulilasher 1365: 1359: 1343:InternetHero 1332: 1309: 1293:InternetHero 1290: 1276: 1257:InternetHero 1236: 1208:process fork 1204:Webby Awards 1193: 1187: 1179: 1143: 1121: 1068: 1046: 1025:Apparently ( 972: 942: 911: 910: 907: 903: 898: 882: 879: 874: 872: 804: 778: 775: 772: 769: 764: 745: 717: 714:Two? editors 697: 655: 625:I restored ( 621: 582: 576: 570: 564: 558: 552: 534: 528: 522: 516: 510: 504: 497:81.129.31.26 486: 480: 474: 468: 462: 456: 431: 411: 391: 382: 379: 350: 349: 341: 322:Lazulilasher 273: 230: 223: 202: 180: 166: 143: 124: 101: 70: 43: 37: 3606:DEFAULTSORT 2733:I've asked 2485:Other views 2433:talk page, 2258:above.) — 1910:—Preceding 1902:anniversary 1694:revised -- 924:67.49.8.228 807:67.49.8.228 801:Problematic 781:—Preceding 622:Postscript: 234:—Preceding 36:This is an 4508:- I think 4461:Thank you 4418:don't like 3807:elsewhere 3226:good faith 3207:their view 3177:filed here 3045:amazon.com 2991:Richhoncho 2956:Richhoncho 2672:arimareiji 2589:talkheader 2016:Jim Miller 1969:3O on AfDs 1801:Firefly322 1723:Firefly322 1707:Firefly322 1696:Firefly322 1686:Firefly322 1640:article. 1616:User:Hrafn 1255:talk-page. 1086:your WP:3O 1007:I posted ( 873:There are 672:MickMacNee 580:block user 574:filter log 532:block user 526:filter log 484:block user 478:filter log 392:See also: 90:Archive 10 4537:Here's a 4401:Athaenara 4334:Athaenara 4321:Athaenara 4283:Athaenara 4240:Athaenara 4228:Athaenara 4160:Athaenara 3939:Athaenara 3655:Athaenara 3626:Athaenara 3614:Athaenara 3553:Athaenara 3535:Athaenara 3518:Athaenara 3463:User:EhJJ 3407:User:EhJJ 3120:MainBegan 3107:Athaenara 3088:MainBegan 3037:-Harout72 3013:Athaenara 2975:Athaenara 2818:Athaenara 2774:Athaenara 2722:Athaenara 2562:Athaenara 2517:Athaenara 2509:Archive 3 2501:Archive 2 2493:Archive 1 2382:Rabicante 2260:Athaenara 2200:user page 2167:Athaenara 2108:WP:MEDCAB 2010:done this 1952:talk page 1940:Athaenara 1853:WP:MEDCAB 1779:different 1573:Athaenara 1564:Whoa, he 1548:Athaenara 1512:Athaenara 1460:Athaenara 1415:Catalonia 1399:Athaenara 1243:telescope 1090:Athaenara 1043:New to 3O 1031:Athaenara 1013:Athaenara 995:Athaenara 885:Athaenara 631:Athaenara 600:Athaenara 586:block log 538:block log 490:block log 398:Athaenara 183:Farrukh38 169:Farrukh38 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 4422:MaIl1989 4299:Epilogue 4252:'fenian' 3966:'fenian' 3905:'fenian' 3865:'fenian' 3758:'fenian' 3738:WP:CIVIL 3638:'fenian' 3590:'fenian' 3486:'fenian' 3423:'fenian' 3324:'fenian' 3270:WP:CIVIL 3230:civility 2838:Iraq War 2745:contribs 2703:contribs 2427:Hi all, 2409:Jclemens 2293:Jaakobou 2186:See also 2121:Seddon69 2095:'fenian' 2029:Gaogouli 1996:Jclemens 1984:Fr33kman 1957:Fr33kman 1924:contribs 1912:unsigned 1882:Fr33kman 1862:Fr33kman 1823:Eldereft 1752:Eldereft 1490:contribs 1252:NY Times 1247:NY Times 1216:Wikidemo 1191:contribs 1162:Student7 1147:Student7 1102:Eve Hall 1084:I think 1049:Eve Hall 975:Chaldean 950:Eldereft 805:Anon IP 783:unsigned 726:Sbowers3 556:contribs 508:contribs 460:contribs 306:Amatulić 280:Sbowers3 236:unsigned 153:research 150:knwledge 4515:ƒingers 4506:Comment 4493:Anaxial 4355:useful? 4246:Domer48 4010:two (2) 4004:Unlike 3960:Domer48 3899:Domer48 3882:Jdorney 3859:Domer48 3842:Jdorney 3827:BigDunc 3809:Jdorney 3794:BigDunc 3776:Jdorney 3752:Domer48 3719:BigDunc 3701:Jdorney 3632:Domer48 3584:Domer48 3555:, as a 3480:Domer48 3471:neutral 3417:Domer48 3411:neutral 3405:Thanks 3363:userbox 3318:Domer48 2693:WeHaWoe 2558:Csangos 2399:and/or 2397:WP:RS/N 2347:Arcayne 2323:Arcayne 2254:(Added 2204:history 2089:Domer48 2048:Dicting 2040:Dicting 1783:Averell 1566:blanked 1417:article 1281:Annyong 1233:article 1181:Dario D 1073:Annyong 908:as fact 750:Annyong 660:Annyong 436:Annyong 416:Annyong 207:Annyong 129:Annyong 39:archive 4543:Bettia 4510:WP:DEW 4481:WP:RFP 4434:see it 4270:(EhJJ) 4023:(EhJJ) 3988:(EhJJ) 3746:WP:NPA 3742:WP:AGF 3612:.) — 3450:(EhJJ) 3394:(EhJJ) 3365:and a 3344:(EhJJ) 3144:(EhJJ) 2952:WP:BLP 2920:Sparta 2604:Anomie 2596:WP:UTM 2401:WP:WQA 2110:& 2027:3O on 1954:. :-) 1530:Frank 1395:as per 1316:SharkD 811:Pedant 741:WP:WQA 721:WP:EAR 449:Dr Nat 368:Dr Nat 4524:Roids 4485:WP:3O 4365:here. 4319:. — 4150:I do 4015:WP:3O 3516:. — 3382:, and 3371:WP:3O 3244:". I 3139:WP:3O 2973:? — 2798:Giggy 2735:Giggy 2624:fr33k 2580:short 2536:fr33k 2463:fr33k 2405:WP:3O 2233:fr33k 2212:watch 2208:links 2112:WP:3O 1828:cont. 1757:cont. 1596:Diffs 1536:talk 1524:Done. 1478:User 1339:truce 1278:Hello 1272:WP:3O 1070:Hello 920:WP:30 916:WP:DR 747:Hello 701:Avala 657:Hello 433:Hello 413:Hello 204:Hello 126:Hello 16:< 4497:talk 4470:talk 4379:talk 4309:diff 4305:diff 4006:WP:M 3953:WP:3 3935:bold 3886:talk 3846:talk 3813:talk 3780:talk 3740:and 3705:talk 3467:WP:M 3307:WP:3 3297:WP:3 3289:WP:3 3278:WP:3 3272:and 3266:WP:3 3251:WP:3 3238:WP:3 3228:and 3211:WP:3 3197:and 3185:they 3170:WP:3 3124:talk 3092:talk 3072:here 2995:talk 2960:talk 2932:talk 2910:talk 2887:talk 2872:talk 2850:talk 2836:The 2814:diff 2802:talk 2739:talk 2713:and 2697:talk 2676:talk 2655:talk 2556:The 2513:hist 2505:hist 2497:hist 2443:only 2431:This 2413:talk 2386:talk 2312:feel 2286:here 2226:here 2216:logs 2196:edit 2145:talk 2125:talk 2075:talk 2052:talk 2044:talk 2000:talk 1920:talk 1857:WP:3 1849:WP:3 1805:talk 1787:talk 1775:over 1711:talk 1700:talk 1690:talk 1682:WP:3 1678:WP:3 1663:WP:3 1659:WP:3 1654:WP:3 1650:WP:3 1646:WP:3 1627:WP:3 1620:WP:3 1505:diff 1501:diff 1498:diff 1484:talk 1442:talk 1381:talk 1347:talk 1335:this 1320:talk 1297:talk 1261:talk 1231:this 1220:talk 1197:logs 1185:talk 1166:talk 1151:talk 1138:and 1106:talk 1053:talk 1027:diff 1009:diff 979:talk 958:talk 928:talk 904:fact 875:many 791:talk 743:? — 730:talk 705:talk 676:talk 627:diff 598:. — 568:logs 550:talk 520:logs 502:talk 472:logs 454:talk 429:. — 427:here 372:talk 344:diff 326:talk 311:talk 284:talk 260:talk 244:talk 187:talk 173:talk 113:talk 105:here 4311:), 4152:not 3691:. 3413:.-- 3217:" 3179:by 3082:MTV 3078:MTV 3041:MTV 2792:or 2717:). 2634:-s- 2629:man 2546:-s- 2541:man 2473:-s- 2468:man 2452:big 2439:not 2316:not 2243:-s- 2238:man 1975:AfD 1629:is 376:→ 4499:) 4472:) 4464:-- 4428:. 4404:✉ 4381:) 4337:✉ 4324:✉ 4286:✉ 4231:✉ 4219:}} 4213:{{ 4195:}} 4189:{{ 4163:✉ 4156:do 4063:-- 3942:✉ 3888:) 3848:) 3815:) 3782:) 3732:a 3707:) 3658:✉ 3650:no 3617:✉ 3609:}} 3603:{{ 3538:✉ 3521:✉ 3314:-- 3190:, 3141:. 3126:) 3110:✉ 3094:) 3016:✉ 2997:) 2978:✉ 2962:) 2934:) 2912:) 2889:) 2874:) 2852:) 2844:. 2821:✉ 2804:) 2777:✉ 2725:✉ 2678:) 2657:) 2592:}} 2586:{{ 2565:✉ 2520:✉ 2458:? 2415:) 2403:. 2388:) 2354:() 2330:() 2263:✉ 2214:| 2210:| 2206:| 2202:| 2198:| 2188:: 2183:→ 2170:✉ 2163:}} 2157:{{ 2147:) 2127:) 2085:-- 2077:) 2054:) 2002:) 1943:✉ 1926:) 1922:• 1807:) 1789:) 1713:) 1599:: 1591:→ 1576:✉ 1551:✉ 1533:| 1515:✉ 1463:✉ 1444:) 1402:✉ 1383:) 1349:) 1322:) 1299:) 1263:) 1222:) 1168:) 1153:) 1142:. 1134:, 1108:) 1093:✉ 1055:) 1034:✉ 1016:✉ 998:✉ 981:) 960:~ 952:~( 930:) 888:✉ 793:) 732:) 707:) 678:) 634:✉ 603:✉ 401:✉ 328:) 286:) 262:) 246:) 189:) 175:) 115:) 86:→ 4495:( 4468:( 4377:( 4072:) 4068:( 3884:( 3844:( 3811:( 3778:( 3703:( 3514:] 3299:. 3122:( 3090:( 2993:( 2958:( 2930:( 2908:( 2885:( 2870:( 2848:( 2800:( 2762:5 2757:1 2742:· 2737:( 2700:· 2695:( 2674:( 2653:( 2607:⚔ 2511:( 2503:( 2495:( 2411:( 2384:( 2218:) 2194:( 2143:( 2123:( 2073:( 2050:( 2042:( 1998:( 1977:. 1934:( 1918:( 1830:) 1826:( 1803:( 1785:( 1759:) 1755:( 1717:‎ 1709:( 1698:( 1688:( 1496:( 1487:· 1482:( 1440:( 1379:( 1345:( 1318:( 1295:( 1259:( 1218:( 1194:· 1188:· 1183:( 1164:( 1149:( 1104:( 1051:( 977:( 956:) 954:s 926:( 789:( 728:( 703:( 674:( 588:) 583:· 577:· 571:· 565:· 559:· 553:· 548:( 540:) 535:· 529:· 523:· 517:· 511:· 505:· 500:( 492:) 487:· 481:· 475:· 469:· 463:· 457:· 452:( 370:( 324:( 313:) 309:( 304:~ 282:( 258:( 242:( 185:( 171:( 111:( 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Third opinion/Archive 3 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index