en User talk:Athaenara Archive 3

This is an archive of discussions from December 2006 through September 2012.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Third opinion discussions

The Wikipedia:Third opinion project

2006

Naming conventions

Hello, Athaenara. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused, but I didn't want to get involved in the discussion at hand. I simply wanted to say a word to end the "thread", in hopes that any problems had been settled off-site of the page. Cheers, PullToOpen^Talk 03:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, PullToOpen, for restoring the listing (diff) on Wikipedia:Third opinion. –Æ. 04:04 ... my head is spinning after your brief materialisations and disappearances and reappearances on three (have I lost count?) pages… –Æ. 04:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you recently moved several House episodes to include a consistent disambiguation suffix (House episode) when none is needed. You might be aware that this issue has been a matter of significant debate at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), but the general consensus is that consistent suffixes are to be avoided unless there is a compelling reason to use them which is related to the show itself. I was unable to find a discussion of a House naming convention that you mentioned in your move logs, but any such written convention should probably be changed to comply with WP:TV-NC.

If you feel strongly that the articles should use the suffixes, feel free to propose a move request through WP:RM. – Anþony talk 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time (over a week ago) there were something like 60 episodes, approximately 17 of which lacked the form. Whether formal or informal, I perceived it as a convention. Only later did I learn that House enthusiasts eschew the form except where essential. I disagree with the consensus as described but television is not ordinarily one of my interests and I won't be pursuing it further. Thanks for your note, I do appreciate the additional information. Athænara 22:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Athænara. (I hope that you and Anþony won't mind someone whose name contains only modern English letters joining the conversation!)

Just so you know, I had previously moved the House episode articles to comply with the convention at WP:TV-NC, which you probably would have seen if you had looked in the articles' history. The general convention for all television episode articles is to disambiguate only when there is another article that might have that name — so, in the case of House, we disambiguate "Sleeping Dogs Lie (House episode)" because there are several other articles that might be called Sleeping Dogs Lie, but we don't disambiguate "House vs. God" because there's nothing else that could have that name. This is in keeping with the general Wikipedia naming conventions at WP:NC and WP:DAB.

It's not a question of what "House enthusiasts" prefer, it's a matter of Wikipedia-wide convention. One aspect of the debate Anþony refers to above is the question of whether the enthusiasts of any given show should be able to carve out an exception to the general convention or not. My own understanding, which I believe to be general Wikipedia practice, is that guidelines are expressions of wide community consensus; reasonable exceptions to those guidelines can always be made, but the community as a whole should accept that those exceptions are reasonable. To date, no particular series has presented arguments for an exception which the community as a whole has accepted. In particular, the argument for "consistency" in naming has been unable to gain traction, since the same argument could be applied to any articles in a category which has both disambiguated and non-disambiguated members (such as Category:Short stories by Stephen King or Category:Famous horses). The general sentiment (supported by about 80% of editors involved in the discussion) has been that television episodes aren't really different from any other category of article when it comes to disambiguation. This consensus has been disputed by a vocal minority who do not accept it as a consensus; if you really want to dig into the matter, you can read the discussion in the archives of WT:TV-NC, beginning here.

The dispute has included some acrimony and an ArbCom case, which you're welcome to look into if you're interested. I know that you moved the House articles in good faith — I just wanted to let you know that you've inadvertently wandered into a minefield, and why you might see explosions going on around you. :^) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minefield *chuckle* yes, I do see that. I am old school in my preference for consistent form in related encyclopedia entries. I am also old school in my deliberate avoidance of being drawn into lengthy acrimonious disputes between deeply entrenched opponents ;-) This was far more information than I wanted or needed but, sincerely, Josiah, I welcome your friendly note! -Æ. 04:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007

Talk pages

→ To keep discussion located where previously established: Post timestamped 10:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC) in this talk page history moved to User talk:Fresheneesz#Your WP:3O report where first responses to that report were posted several hours ago. –Æ. 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I was talking to you, not responding to the 3O request. >Radiant< 12:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fresh is in the habit of removing remarks from his own talk page (e.g. here) so it's disingenuous for him to complain about other people removing remarks from their talk pages. Worse, rather than removing threads, he selectively removes only parts of threads that disagree with him, thus in effect misrepresenting the discussion. >Radiant< 09:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations best pertain to your own habit as previously shown in the diffs cited in the request last week for a third opinion. Fresheneesz's attitude is reasonable. Vindictive attempts to cast him in a bad light, which really should not continue, reflect far more on you than on anyone else. Athænara ✉ 18:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, I guess I shouldn't have deleted one of his PA posts as a direct response to his removal of peoples' comments. I feel like something needs to be done about Radiant, but I've just resigned to ignoring him as much as possible. Fresheneesz 20:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Athænara ✉ 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about? He was alleging on 3O that I was abusive by removing talk page posts. I respond that (1) it's not abusive, and (2) he's doing the very same thing himself. I'm not alleging anything, and vindictiveness has nothing to do with it. >Radiant< 08:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant, the discussion was and is grounded elsewhere. You should never have posted on my talk page. It merely exposes your mispresentation of events to deeper scrutiny which, while perhaps exactly what it needs, is probably not what you intend. Athænara ✉ 09:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just FUD, Athy. >Radiant< 12:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"FUD"? I don't know what that means. I suspect I'll be happier if I remain in ignorance of it.
"Athy"? Whoever you are, and you are a stranger to me, you are becoming increasingly offensive. Are you trying to discourage third opinions? Athænara ✉ 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Fresheneesz, for injuries suffered in steadfast defence of Wikipedia:Civility in the face of determined attack, I award the Purple Barnstar. —Æ. ✉ 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for my first barnstar! I'm honored. Fresheneesz 03:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You truly earned it! — Athænara ✉ 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pike disambig

Hi Athaenara, I think we've finished the pike discussion but I still had a few more questions so I moved to your talk page. First of all the changes I made were all done in good faith and from a sincere effort to keep a NPoV. I've changed it back but I still think it shouldn't be like that. Can I go to a higher editing instance then the WP3O? Like users vote or something? I'll probably loose since most people seems to know more about the fish then the weapon but I want to make my case somewhere. Now for wiki etiquette. If I want to move a page is there a recomended procedure to do so? I'll be much obliged if you'll counsel me since I'm quite a new editor. Hope it's not too much trouble for you.Nik Sage • Talk 15:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm already bugging you then I'll ask another question. If I want to change the name of an article where do I go to? (I know it's a similar question but not the same). Nik Sage • Talk 18:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Replied on user's talk page in Pike/W:3O/Wiki etiquette section. — Æ.) 19:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsmill massacre

→ in re: Talk:Kingsmill massacre/Archive 1#Third opinion

Thanks for you contributions to the Kingsmill massacre page. Would you mind having one more look and giving us your thoughts on the current version? Regards. Jdorney 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I've done as you asked, and replied on Talk:Kingsmill massacre#Third opinion. — Athænara ✉ 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

There is no talk page because we've been battling it out via edit summaries. Hbdragon88 08:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→The post above was in response to my post to User talk:Hbdragon88:

"In re your listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion—there was no talk page link provided to direct WP:3O to the location of the dispute. — Athænara ✉ 08:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

If editors aren't discussing their issues in a civil manner, the dispute doesn't fulfill the basic good faith stipulation on the project page. Surely you didn't expect a WP:3O editor to participate in the edit war? Yikes! IFF two editors are engaging in civil discussion, cannot agree, and seek a third opinion, then the dispute qualifies for WP:3O. — Athænara ✉ 08:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The way I see it, if the WP:30 editor disagrees with me, I'll drop the issue entirely. If the editor agrees with me, I hope that the other editor will also drop the issue. Hbdragon88 09:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Template proposed for deletion—result was delete 06:47, 1 March 2007 UTC.)

X Japan

Hi, since you have previously provided your input at Talk: X Japan, I was wondering if you could do the same at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkcat21. The X Japan article has recently been unprotected and the other editor involved in the initial dispute, Darkcat21, has since engaged in yet another edit war, (re)adding content based on sources which have been disputed by multiple editors. Since several means of dispute resolution have already been exhausted (such as pointing out policies, requesting third opinions and temporary page protection), a request for comment appears to be the next logical step. But there are few editors at least somewhat familiar with the situation, that's why I'm contacting you - I hope that's not a problem. Regards - Cyrus XIII 03:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions to that discussion (here and here, about personal websites as sources) were very minor, but I will take a look at the Rfc as you suggest. — Athænara ✉ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus—sorry I took so long to see that there was a niche there for my minor role in the thing—I posted on the RFC page a few minutes ago. — Athænara ✉ 10:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I really liked your "For the user to not treat fundamental Wikipedia principles as if they were a nuisance" line! — Æ. ✉ 10:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! That line actually used to end with "...and act in accordance with them in the future, or not all." but I left it to ShadowHalo to decide whether that "or not at all" bit was too harsh and he opted to remove it. Now, I really hope something good comes out of that RFC. As you might have noticed, there has been unrest on Talk:X Japan again. Great to have my behavior called "unreasonable" by a newcomer to the issue, huh? But that editor is probably still a little sore from a different dispute I had with him regarding a style issue. Take care - Cyrus XIII 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your intervention

Thank you for your participation in James Clark McReynolds. I appreciate the third opinion. Once I get home I will post the full quotes from the sources I have in the talk page to substantiate the statements given. Magidin 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I happened to notice it because the user who repeatedly reverted your edits came off a 3RR block (see report in WP:AN/3RR archive 41) in late March—that user's talk page is on my watchlist. — Athænara ✉ 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loudness war

→ (In re: Talk:Loudness war#Popular Examples Refs)

I just provided a third opinion there, but it seemed you had picked it up while I was writing. Well, two third opinions can never hurt. --User:Krator (t c) 08:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, isn't that the way it goes. I'll go ahead and post, and if it turns out my view isn't useful it can be reverted or ignored or laughed at or whatever. — Athaenara 08:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) --User:Krator (t c) 08:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, do you think you could recheck what's going on at that page? It seems your comments were either misinterpreted by myself or User:Jrod2 because you never made a judgement. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it. Illuminatedwax 12:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a look ~~later this morning~~ tomorrow. — Athaenara 16:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NM, it's all worked out! Illuminatedwax 04:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear that. — Athaenara 04:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice my inadvertent pun until now ;-D Athaenara 03:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

House swapping

→ (In re: Talk:House swapping)

I saw you removed it saying there was no indication of where discussion (if any) was. Did you look at the article history and compare diffs? I did, just to see if I might be able to determine what the dispute even was about and found a conversation at the bottom of the article using hidden comment tags. It seemed to be a fight over external links. I responded on the talk page. Just thought you might be interested in where I found it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at 3O history, user contribs, talk page, article history and last two diffs. At that point, I lost patience, so I missed out on the secret messages! I'll go take a look to see what you gave them, thanks for the note. — Athaenara 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above & beyond the call of duty, ONUnicorn, and a very nice job. Athaenara 22:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab

Hi, Athaenara! I'm mediating a MedCab case at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-14 H. Although your participation is not compulsory for the mediation to go forward, it would be really helpful if you'd provide a statement, because you've been noted as involved. I saw the "third-opinion" tag on your userpage, and that's what I'm trying to get at right now. Thank you!, Cool Blue^{talk to me} 01:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like it if you gave your account there. Specifically any comment on my behavior would be very helpful to me. ^(H) 02:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(1.) I've found H very reasonable, with a good understanding of policies and guidelines. Isotalo, on the other hand, has been disruptive (see page histories on Subtlety and Entremet), deliberately and repeatedly discourteous to other editors (see posts on Talk:Subtlety - even blanked active discussion there - and posts to User talk:H), and has flung the epithet "bureaucratic" at other users' policy concerns; he seems to see no distinction between basic policies and bureaucracy. — Athaenara 06:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(2.) Pursuant to understanding Isotalo's position, I began reading the diffs he provided. I'm baffled by his unawareness of his own habitual and even aggressive discourtesy, which violates both the spirit and the letter of No personal attacks and Civility policies, and by his apparent expectation that his distortions and deliberate defiance of other encyclopedic policies will be accepted as substitutes for the real thing. Isotalo should be called on that carpet he's trying to roll out for H. — Athaenara 20:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Feel free to quote what I have posted here as well as what I have posted on Talk:Subtlety and on Talk:Entremet. — Athaenara 20:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question for mediator Cool Blue:

In which section on the case page should my comments be posted? — Athaenara 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just create a subsection called "Discussion" and post your comments. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 19:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to provide a statement. I've provided two, which you're welcome to copy to the project page where you see fit. — Athaenara 20:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→ To H: This applies to you as well. If you want my statements there, they're yours to copy to the project page. — Athaenara 20:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Global tag on Anti-Europeanism

Hi, you seem more wiki-wise than I, however I added the global tag on Anti-Europeanism per your comments. Please feel free to remove if that tag seems in error. Benjiboi 19:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tassajara

→ See links for WP:COI discussion in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#Tassajara

What happened to dex request

→ (In re: posted request & its subsequent removal from WP:3O. —A.)

I'm new to third opinion. What happened to my request for a third opinion and is it common for the request to be removed so quickly?--scuro 12:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the discussion on Talk:Dextroamphetamine#Third Op, a third opinion had been provided by Danielfolsom. If you want to list your dispute again, please feel free to do so, linking the specific talk page section where the dispute is occurring. — Athaenara ✉ 12:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff

Thanks for your superb work on Miranda Devine.

Have you considered becoming a Wikipedia administrator? If so, I'd very much like to support you. Cheers, CWC 01:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing! As for adminship, it's been discussed (User talk:Athaenara/Archive 1#Adminship) but so far no one has talked me into it. — Athaenara ✉ 01:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This post of yours was eloquent and to the point. — Athaenara ✉ 06:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Geoeg problem

→ See WP:COI discussion in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 5#The Geoeg problem

Thanks and a question

Thanks for cleaning up the Cuban sandwich entry - it even looks better! I've noticed, tho, that the anonymous user (IP 68.155.121.7) who was involved in that dispute is the same person who has been reverting or removing my contributions on several other articles over the past couple of days, and that he/she has made very few other edits besides those. Any suggestions? I'm guessing someone is trying to hide behind an IP, but I don't know who or why. Zeng8r 06:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Durova calls Wikisleuthing (also discussed in this essay) may be useful here. Have there been similar edits by a registered user? — Athaenara ✉ 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look into the IP issue, but I did notice that the same user is at it again. He or she put similar misinformation into the Cuban sandwich article and added another reference that doesn't support the new edit. There's more explanation on the talk page (from me; the anonymous user has yet to discuss anything except through snarky edit summaries.)

Also, I may have accidentally messed up the fancy reference formatting. Sorry about that... Zeng8r 02:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's difficult to collaborate with users who won't openly discuss with the other editors what they're doing. That one has been warned on the user talk page about those edit summaries. (The citation survived intact ;-) — Athaenara ✉ 02:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit

I really appreciate it. First time using it, and I was afraid I'd messed it up even after reviewing it. Again, thanks! Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

Hey. I just wanted to jump in and say that it's been a pleasure collaborating with you on the 3O page. You've been so attentive, patient and helpful, and I look forward to working with you in the future. Thanks again. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise! and thank you :-) — Athaenara ✉ 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my entry

Thanks for the tactful way of correcting my entry. I guess I have to remind myself to read the instructions especially in unfamiliar environments. Thanks again. Dr.K. 03:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 15:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008

3O - Quackwatch

I don't think the dispute as you edited it now describes what I'm concerned about. --Ronz (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - we're editing around each other. Were you going to put my full dispute in the article talk page? --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I though you would do that, but I certainly can if you wish. What would be a more accurate description which would also comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute? — Athaenara ✉ 03:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it in with a link, following what was done with previous dispute. --Ronz (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! My concern is there appears to be disruption of the consensus-building process whenever the topic is discussed. --Ronz (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably old news to you, but that's a cranky [irritable and irascible] bunch that hangs out on that page, seeking, identifying and participating in every possible opportunity for disagreement and squabbling. The requests for comment process is fairly simple to initiate and would elicit the perspectives of uninvolved editors who couldn't care less about what Quackwatch and its partisans want in its article but do care about writing a genuinely good encyclopedia here. — Athaenara ✉ 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I was thinking WQA first to get the personal comments under control. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		A small token of appreciation for all the good work you do at 3O. Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's really very nice of you. It's churlish of me to complain, but that upside-down rainbow bothers me, may I shop around for a replacement? — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome to make a change... :) Johnfos (talk) 02:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I chose {{The Barnstar of Diligence}}. — Athaenara ✉ 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Killian documents

→ See WP:COI discussion in User talk:Athaenara/Archive 6#Killian documents

Justin Chadwick

Thank you for your helpful comment. I realized that before getting your message and edited myself! I trust I did that correctly. A little mollusk (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I think it's ok now. — Athaenara ✉ 21:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK there, perhaps. More generally speaking, the person who is upset about the request for citations has really, really escalated this and is continuing to edit the page in dispute. :( A little mollusk (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the listing itself. There are quite a few third opinion volunteers. One of them is very likely to respond to your request within the next day or two. — Athaenara ✉ 21:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I know. I appreciate your time and kindness. A little mollusk (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my remarks at Talk:Justin Chadwick, particulary my final comment. I believe my concern re: the item (given its brevity, "article" seems too generous a description) in the Observer being a very reliable source is valid. Thank you for your help. MovieMadness (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the article talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 19:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pied

A little mollusk (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for your patience and tact this week in at least one heated situation that I know of. (I am certain there may have been more.) Your cool served to demonstrate of the Wiki code of civility in excellent form ... I hope others will take pains to emulate it. Thank you! A little mollusk (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Thank you for the praise and the pie. — Athaenara ✉ 18:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelasgians

→ In re: Talk:Pelasgians (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and my question about {{RFChist_list}}.

Very strange. In the meantime, you are welcome to manually add it to the list. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to do that without breaking anything. Thanks. (I watched your user talk page for a reply; as you replied here, feel free to remove my post from your page.) — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did as you suggested (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 00:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental issues

Hi Athaenara, I'm seeking some admin assistance please...

There is an editor who has created Category:Environmental issues, which is said to list "articles related to the the negative effects of human activity on the human health and on the natural environment." And this editor is proceeding to populate the category in part by splitting chunks of negative text from existing articles, thereby creating POV forks. For example, see Talk:Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China (which is at 3O), and Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam. Hope you can intervene and help to maintain NPOV please... Johnfos (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was at a loss at first, so I looked in yesterday's tip of the day: Wikipedia:Tip of the day/March 10.

Have a look there, maybe the Help desk or one of the others will be a good route.

I'm not vastly experienced in dealing with POV forks and POV categories, and I'm in the middle of another task which requires high concentration, so I'm reluctant to take up the charge on my own. Let me know here if you find a venue that's on point for this. — Athaenara ✉ 06:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response, which enabled me to contact another admin, who is yet to respond. But User:Relata refero offered a 3O on Talk:Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China and couldn't see a particular POV problem. Johnfos (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Geordies

I had started to go through the list that was being edit-warred over as a neutral admin (I'd made one removal already) when it was protected. Having looked at it more closely, to be honest, I think this is an article that is fundamentally flawed, because it's a List of something that can't be accurately defined. I am tempted to AfD it. What do you think? Black Kite 22:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is unlikely to be improved by prolonged edit warring. As per The Heymann Standard, AfD may be a productive route. — Athaenara ✉ 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Incidentally, you re-inserted the information I had removed into this article when adding the protection template. Black Kite 22:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had been trying to keep up with the deletions and reverts on the Geordies page, its talk page, and on third opinion for a few hours and couldn't give it the patient and meticulous case-by-case analysis which the thing really needs :-/ — Athaenara ✉ 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Anyway, I have nominated it for deletion now. Black Kite 23:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

81.129.31.26

Apologies if this thread is ill-placed, and feel free to refactor as you please.

81.129.31.26 (talk · contribs), a user you recently blocked, is currently requesting unblocking. They claim they were reverting an obvious sockpuppet, and this seems a potentially legitimate claim to me, at first glance. I notice things may be complicated, though: MickMacNee (talk · contribs) is also alleging this IP is an abusive sock at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Molag Bal (2) (although you don't seem to have mentioned that while blocking, as far as I can tell). Any comments or insight would be welcome. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison:

81.129.31.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
86.148.189.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dr Nat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Potentially legitimate at first glance is a good way to put it.

(Now Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 3#Forwarded post.)

Postscript:

The ssp (2) page you noted in your post above did not yet exist when I blocked 81.129.31.26.

It will be interesting to see what ensues when the brief blocks for disruption expire.

For further comparison (see also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Molag Bal):

86.147.71.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.152.63.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.132.238.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
217.43.213.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I knew nothing about any of this before the revert warring on the Third opinion project page began. — Athaenara ✉ 07:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the reply. :) Waited a bit, thinking other passersby might have input, but nobody else has commented except at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Molag Bal (2), which mentions some (prior?) checkuser results. Between that and your comments, here, I've declined the unblock request for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me on this! I checked the block log tonight and saw an unblock and a reblock (6 days) by Blueboy96. — Athaenara ✉ 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KARE-TV

Thank you for checking in with this page's issues, I wanted to try to connect with someone as the same user seems bent on spinning (or just plain deleting) neutral cited content in favor of non-cited or non NPOV analysis, kind of getting sick of adjusting it, and an admin has already blocked him but it still continues wondering if you might have time to check it out when you get a chance. Thanks, Tmore3 (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and thank you for your note.

I will look into this further. — Athaenara ✉ 04:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→ In re: my post on User talk:Robinsegg.

I am replying to your post on my talk page. Regarding KARE edits, the above editor [Tmore3] has been warring with the ratings information. He has used selected and questionably accurate references to prove his personal POV that "KARE has struggled..." He uses household ratings numbers, which are only considered as bragging rights in the industry. Clearly, this information seeks to support the competition. His references bounce back and forth from demographic numbers (those important in the industry) to household ratings from different ratings periods, giving a misleading picture. He has deleted my offer of compromise to compare the February 2008 HH numbers with those of the February 2008 demographic numbers, ommitting other contested material. He also continues to downplay the significance of KARE's NPPA awards, which are highly competitive and prized in the industry. He recently edited "honored" with "was the recipient of..." and recently deleted a judge's quote referenced from the NPPA website. Even with the use of references, the editor is spinning the information to downplay KARE, while cleverly supporting the competition. This shows a strong COI as well as NPOV issues. I have sought help through the editor's assistance page, as well as directly seeking the help of another moderator. Robinsegg 20:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinsegg (talk • contribs) [reply]

Thank you for getting back to me on this. It's becoming apparent that the issues are not quite what they seemed to be at first. I re-listed the dispute on the third opinion project page.

I also posted a request for attention on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations#KARE-TV and WCCO-TV ratings dispute. — Athaenara ✉ 03:14-04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Now Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations/Archive 8#KARE-TV and WCCO-TV ratings dispute.)

Rafael Correa

I wanted to thank you for offering a third opinion to help resolve the dispute on the aforementioned page. Your contribution is much appreciated! Riselikehelium (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Hope you're enjoying San Fran. My brother moved there recently and has got only good things to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riselikehelium (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like a temperate climate :-) — Athaenara ✉ 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Doncaster

Hey saw your comments in WP:3O. Doesn't this seem a dispute to you. The editors have been attacking one another in nearly every one of those 3 sections in the talk page. Do have a closer look at the discussions going on. Thanks -Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 01:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The request did not link to an active talk page discussion (see Third opinion#How to list a dispute).

It may be relisted, but with what description? — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment

Just wanted to say thanks for your comment at Talk:Homeschooling‎#Problems with "Child Abuse" section. It was my first attempt at a third opinion, and I may have been out of line, but I do appreciate the assistance. Jim Miller (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Your contribution there was a model of dispassionate, neutral, and thorough analysis, I think, and I'm glad to see you with the project. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Now Talk:Homeschooling/Archive 5#Problems with "Child Abuse" section.)

Re-write

Thanks for copy-editing my entry at WP:3O. Your version sounds a lot better. 12:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Channel R (talk • contribs)

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 12:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Meerkat Manor

Re this note. I removed it because he is a stalker who has already been blocked 3 times for refusing to stop following me just to leave notes behind me disagreeing with me, and changing my edits. He has been stalking me and another editor for weeks now. He was specifically told multiple times by multiple admins to stop this behavior, and to not do anything with that specific article, but he continues to do so. As such, I generally prefer to just remove any remarks as he isn't supposed to make them anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the backstory, so to speak, it's best to not to remove reasonable comments or questions which have been posted by other users on article talk pages. This one came to my attention because of a request for a third opinion.

If the other user has violated some kind of probation or ban in posting the question, that issue should be brought to admins' attention in one of the admin venues. — Athaenara ✉ 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already has been. His filing of a 3 opinion was downright silly, but on well. He probably won't stop this stuff until he is indef banned since he can't seem to help himself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've had your say there, albeit incivilly [diff]. I recommend that you step back and let uninvolved editors address the specific issue there. WP:3O volunteers are generally quite good at neutral assessments of disagreements. — Athaenara ✉ 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... as was admirably demonstrated by Species8473. — Athaenara ✉ 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Collectonian changed username to AnmaFinotera, inactive since August 2010.) A. – Athaenara ✉ 06:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks - Internet Diplomacy

I was expecting someone who didn't care to nuke the article relating to the dispute and everyone involved without taking a glance at what was going on. Thanks for taking the time. Just a message. Kestasjk (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! — Athaenara ✉ 19:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio 4 UK Theme

→ In re: Talk:Radio 4 UK Theme#Dispute.

Hi Athaenara, Thanks for offering your opinion at Radio 4 UK Theme (apologies for my original non-neutral statement at WP:3O). User:Bardcom seems to be rejecting your views, but I'll not edit the article again until some sort of agreement can be reached. Regards, CarterBar (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bardcom agrees with the "within range" wording. What he rejected was an interpretation of my post (above the addendum) which wasn't what I had actually posted ;-) — Athaenara ✉ 02:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TWT Reference Style

I'm a bit of a wiki-newbie. How did you notice the TWT Reference Style argument I was having with Dicklyon? Willus (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular on Wikipedia:Third opinion, so I saw Talk:Traveling-wave tube#Reference Style when it was listed there. Did the {{rp}} template actually solve the dispute? — Athaenara ✉ 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it did! (diff) — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive response time. I didn't look at the time line exactly so I thought you had responded before my post to third-opinions, as if maybe you had an auto-two-editor-argument detector! Anyway, thanks again. Just a little tip like the one you made can really help to preserve the peace sometimes. BTW, I like your wiki-pages. Willus (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo page

Please don't archive the discussion page. We are revisiting the same arguments over and over again and I need the record of the past arguments there. Thank you. Longchenpa (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are preserved in the talk archive. Inactive discussions which are deemed pertinent currently may of course either be linked on or re-added to the active talk page. Inactive discussions need not be removed from the archive. — Athaenara ✉ 03:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Righto. I've copied the discussions back in, thank you. Longchenpa (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also copied {{Talkarchive}} in; I removed it. — Athaenara ✉ 02:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have copied the entire archive back. If there's nothing that's really archived, then could I deleted it and start really archiving stuff? There is no reason to keep a confusing mess like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1 preserves inactive discussions from September 2007 through April this year, which was more than three months ago, and I think none of those should be on the active talk page. More recent ones needn't be archived yet. When they are, Archive 2 should be created, as Archive 1 is over 100 kb. — Athaenara ✉ 07:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're already working on Archive 2. — Athaenara ✉ 07:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First third opinion

→ In re: Talk:Joe Garcia#Removal of Sourced Material.

Hi. As a newbie Third Opinioner, thought I'd let you know that I took a first stab at a Third Opinion with this. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 16:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done, welcome to the project! — Athaenara ✉ 20:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship between religion and science

I think you missed the point of the discussion entirely. It isn't a question of how to format repeated uses of the same reference, it's how to format a whole host of references (not real references, but information contained in <ref>-tags) (23 of them in total) which are used to support a single point.

As for changing the topic at 3O - I don't think that what Firefly posted in any way reflects the "dispute" - the sourcing dispute boils down to whether WP:V and WP:UNDUE apply to this article. Guettarda (talk) 04:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted yours and left Firefly's as he worded it (I had previously edited his description for neutrality and he reverted it: see WP 3O page history). — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duo on 3O

Hi, my thinking was that the AfD would be better off completing in case it was deleted. Sorry :-) fr33k man ^{t - c} 01:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. This dispute about artist chronologies in an album infobox was unrelated to the AfD (which was initiated by the user who didn't want them). — Athaenara ✉ 02:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understood what they had done and why they had done it. I just feel that only admins should deal with an article while it's doing and AfD. Cheers. fr33k man ^{t - c} 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Link

→ In re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duo (Richard Marx and Matt Scannell album)

I had no idea about the link duplicate. Sorry I reverted your edit before. Hope you have a nice weekend. --Candy156sweet (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~How do I withdraw the nomination? Do I just remove the tags from the article or is there another process that I should follow? Thanks in advance for your help.~~ I think I've figured it out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! — Athaenara ✉ 07:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too?

Re: this suggestion - believe me, that anon knows how to sign their posts. He or she has been told at least a dozen times! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fr33kman mediator school

→ In re: User:Fr33kman/New mediator school and User talk:Fr33kman/New mediator school

Hi Athaenara, I have been working on an idea for a proposal and would like your views on it. Could you take a look at the work I've done so far? It's regarding education for new dispute resolvers and mediators (WP:3 and WP:MEDCAB) and would be totally voluntary. Thanks! :-) fr33k man -s- 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'd get more responses from more editors if you posted on WT:3O and WT:MedCab rather than on individual user talk pages. — Athaenara ✉ 00:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was just soliciting your and Daniels' opinion initially, to see if there was even any need or interest? I'll list it their instead. Thanks! :-) fr33k man -s- 01:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the user talk link! :-) fr33k man -s- 17:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3O on Heart

This is a follow up of sorts. There has been no 30 response yet however the user is now making multiple posts to my user page (Eight in the last 12 hours) despite me asking them not to and to use the Heart (band) talk page where I have repeatedly answered this users questions and even made a very clear post (re)citing all my refs. (Talk:Heart (band)#Facts with Citations from the main page concerning Disputed/Questioned items) Their last post(s), made within the last hour, (User talk:Soundvisions1#Hello?) implies they will again revert edits I have made and if I change/revert/complain about said reverts they will have an admin block me for vandalism. (If you will not answer, then you have no right to complain about what I do. If you do complain, I will class it as vandalism, and behave accordingly.) You can, if you have not already, start the reading from their first post on my talk page, User talk:Soundvisions1#Vandalism Warning #1 and go from there.

I see no "how to" for Baiting (trolling) and how to report it, and as of right now this is how I see what the user is doing. Per Wikipedia descriptions what the user is doing not Vandalism. It falls short of the 3R. I did send a plain request to the Arbcom-l list last night however this was before this mornings posts. If you could either look this over and act on it or send it to someone who could act on it today it would be appreciated. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Moonriddengirl#Soundvisions1 for Moonriddengirl's advice ("state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article" and "stick with the essentials about the debate" etc.) to Pdfpdf about this (I hope he follows it and stops deluging your talk page with messages). — Athaenara ✉ 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did not know the user had made that post on Moonriddengirl's talk page. I did already "state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article". That was what kicked all of this off. So in this case I will await the Arbcom-1 response for now because it is better than giving in to the users Baiting (trolling). Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, Moonriddengirl's advice was to Pdfpdf. — Athaenara ✉ 15:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some tags and a new subsection: NPOV / Third Party Opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Discussions now preserved in Talk:Heart (band)/Archive 3.)

Thanks for formating my Third opinion request

→ In re: this edit.

I have never written one of these request before. Thank you very much for cleaning up my third opinion request. Yea, it was sloppy. Thanks again! Jason3777 (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 05:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

→ in re: my third opinion on Talk:General William J. Palmer High School#Lance Armstrong

I appreciate your having a look at this. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 05:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

→ in re: this edit

Thanks for cleaning up after me on WP:3O. I did read that, but reflex made me type in four tildes. Sigh. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you're welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 16:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You star! Keep up the great work!

John Vandenburg told me about 3O. I'm an idealist, I think it is potentially the single most effective tool to support the work of editors. It needs a lot of volunteers, but everyone should do it. If I am any use, I'll ask people who are satisfied with the third option to offer themselves as helpers in the same way. I am guessing that many people who select 3O to resolve disputes will be very nice people, they want to keep escalation nice and low key. That makes things easier for a start. 3O strikes me as precisely the basic sort of support Wikipedians should offer one another. Thanks for your work in this. I haven't used the 3O tags yet, because I don't want to flag it until it succeeds. All credit to 3O if it works. All blame to me if I fail. Have an extremely nice day, good lady. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 02:30, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You're coming on a little strong there, cowboy, but I do appreciate the kind words and I'm glad that the third opinion project is appreciated. — Athaenara ✉ 06:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I suspect you may be doing this anyway, but I was wondering if you could keep an eye on my contributions over at WP:3O and provide me with some feedback. Also, please feel free to interject at any time if you feel the need. Thanks! —BradV 18:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project! It's been one of my favourites since I called upon it for the first time in late 2006 (dispute preserved here). You're doing well (I think your 3O here for example is very good), and we're all encouraged to ask for and provide feedback on WT:3O. — Athaenara ✉ 21:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Turtle ship was the one I was worried about. —BradV 03:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009

Third opinions

I noticed you made a small edit to Talk:Jussi Halla-aho‎ after I requested more info for a Third opinion. I just wanted to say that you are welcome to provide a third opinion on that article if you feel inclined (I couldn't really make sense of it, so feel free to take it). In fact, you are more than welcome to provide an "alternate third opinion" on any discussion to which I write, as I've seen your work and this project can always use more of it! Best regards, (EhJJ)^TALK 00:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk pages to which WP:3O draws attention often have problems, so I sometimes do refactoring and archiving for long-neglected pages. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice and comment

Hi Athaenara. I was wondering if I could get some input from you on an issue with the Telescope article. I've been involved with the article since back in August when I attempted to help resolve an edit war over the Telescope#History section of the article. I entered the discssion toward the end of this section of the talk pages: Talk:Telescope/Archive 1#Arbitray section break.

Undoubtedly one of the complicating factors was that one or more editors had trouble reigning in their emotions and behaving civily. Regardless, we achieved a compromise somewhere around the middle of August and things quieted down for a while. Then, in the middle of October, a long-time-editor that was not actively involved during the earlier conflict, came along and deleted the material that was the subject of the conflict. Needless to say, that started everything back up again and led to this discussion: Talk:Telescope#Undue balance. The most recent discussion can be found here: Talk:Telescope#Accuracy and reliability.

I've taken the position that there is no NPOV issue here and only a question of whether or not the passage in question could reasonably be included in the history section. I also believe, but have not stated it outright, that it was inappropriate for the editor to delete the material, that it should be returned to the article, and that in the future the editors ought to agree that changes to this apparently contentious material should be made only when agreed to through consensus.

This is what I wanted your input on. Could you assess and give me some feedback on how I have handled and interpreted this issue?

I realize that you are busy and have many other issues to work on, but if you could find the time to give me some feedback, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 06:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it more closely when I can, later this week. — Athaenara ✉ 16:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After studying the article's edit history and the discussions, I concluded that the information properly belongs, if anywhere, in an optics or history of optics article. I can't really assess your personal behavior. Do you think you've been pushing too hard? — Athaenara ✉ 01:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re:Stick Candy

→ in re: third opinion on Talk:Stick candy#Please use "Discussion"

Hello Athaenara, I had seen the 3O mention of this article, and was wondering something that may save me time in the future. While I was putting a .txt file together with links to the MOS, External Links, etc. I noticed that you very quickly listed the links in an easy to read bulleted list. Is there a quick was to do this? Or, did you have to copy, and then insert all small and nowiki tags to each one? Thanks — Ched (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was all the labour-intensive way! — Athaenara ✉ 19:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Field Emission Display edit issue was not resolved

→ in re: my removal of a dispute listed on WP:3O; see also User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 5#Field Emission Display resolution

Good morning; I am not sure how you deduced that my copposition to the bulk replacement of the page was resolved, but I assure you that it was not.OldZeb (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I restored it (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 07:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting licked over at Stick Candy

→ in re: Talk:Stick candy#Please use "Discussion"; see also User talk:Athaenara/Archive 3#re:Stick Candy (above)

Hi Ath. In the context of a possible RfA nom, it's come to my attention that I haven't always behaved in a way that's appropriate. Ironically, my heart was in the right place and frequently I was trying to stick up for an editor having a tough time, but I failed to take into account the effect my aggresive tone and manner had on the other editor involved. I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to you for being brusque. You were clearly acting in good faith and there was no need to make my points in such an abrasive manner. I'll make sure to do better next time. I want Wikipedia to be fun and I feel awful that I treated you so shabbily. Sorry about that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

→ in re: these edits to WP:3O page

Thanks for the help on my Third Opinion request (on the Eddie Albert article). My first time doing those, and I thought I'd done it right, but I see now what my errors were. Thanks again. Monkeyzpop (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 21:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

→ in re: this edit and Talk:Criticism of the Council on American-Islamic Relations#Notability tags, unsubstantiated summaries, edit-warring

I see my 3OO report was removed because more than 2 editors are involved. I didn't think it was that big of a deal since the other two editors have been doing the same edits.

What would you recommend to resolve this dispute? Whatever is quickest since all we really need to is an admin to confirm if BLP/original research occurred because it seems some users have no idea what OR is. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? — Athaenara ✉ 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that for original research as well? There is a content dispute over what qualifies as "criticism." Is there a way I can just have an uninvolved party or qualified user just give an objective opinion? Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This week's Signpost says there's a new content noticeboard; Wikipedia:Coordination links a no original research noticeboard as well. — Athaenara ✉ 03:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism by country

→ in re: Talk:Buddhism by country archiving

Thanks for archiving all of those repetitive and old discussions at that discussion page. It looks much better now. Theravada1 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 01:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin

→ in re: this edit and user Logicus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
→ see also: Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 8#Natural Selection never seen as the primary explanation of evolution

Where should this go then? I've personally long given up on the discussions, and they're getting rather frustrating and tedious to wade through. I'm just not sure where it should be listed. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several venues for problems which are more complex than the relatively straightforward two-editor disagreements which WP:3O addresses (see the {{dispute-resolution}} sidebar on the project page).

If the primary problem is one user's behavior (incivility, personal attacks), Wikiquette alerts and Requests for comment/User conduct are both intended to help with that. — Athaenara ✉ 21:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. This issue has been going on for... well months, really. Logicus is the main instigator of these issues, and the main issues involving him/her are original research claims of sources used being incorrect as well as incivility insults to editors (calling them illiterate, among others). The user seems to intentionally create these by talking in the third person as well as unnecessary verbiage and classing "TLDR" posts to make other users focus more on the incomprehensible nature of posts. Honestly, this debate really needs some outside arbitration as well as higher-ups notifying the user as to the improper nature.

The main problem comes from the fact the fact that the user's posts are so convoluted that any arguments against are dismissed as out-and-out stupidity on the part of other editors'. If you look at the user's edits, you can see the trend. I've personally long since ceased doing anything other than reading the debates, but things really have gone on more than long enough and the edits are becoming rather destructive to any kind of meaningful work. I've started looking for outside assistance because a "regular editor's" responses are being flat-out dismissed. If you have any other advice I would more than welcome it; I work in my own little niche in Wikipedia, and when it comes to issues like this I'm just about lost. I can't claim to believe that I can handle further discussion in a civil matter, and as things have been going they have just become worse. Any further advice would be more than welcome. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Coordination page gives a good bird's eye view of the variety of ongoing discussions. The No original research/Noticeboard is the most obvious choice for airing OR problems, but RFC/User conduct might be the most straightforward approach.

(See the disruptive editing guideline for more.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to scratch the whole matter. Another editor decided to respond based on the Third Opinion posting, then another editor arrived simply to state that since it wasn't fitting into those criteria Editor 1 should not be commenting (as well as misquote the request as being from Logicus), and all of it ends in more of a mire and more insults to me. Since the main reason I requested outside aid was due to the fact that any counterpoints were responded with insults of being "illiterate" or an "ignorant American", if I'm not even able to point some outside arbitration to the issue without further insults I am simply removing the article from my watchlist and ignoring it's existence in the future. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found Requests for comment/Logicus, which was opened in February 2007 and hadn't been edited since February 2008 (see page history). From what I've seen on the Charles Darwin talk page, it's clear that the user's pattern of deliberately insulting and alienating other editors has not changed. I think a second RFC would be more than appropriate, but your wish to disengage is understandable. — Athaenara ✉ 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RicoCorinth

Hi Athaenara. I don't know if you're still keeping an eye on WP:3O, but I just had a little duel with RicoCorinth (talk · contribs). He posted a rather long summary on the page, which I neutralized (as I have done for a long time now). He reverted my edits as vandalism, and then it went back and forth and eventually spilled onto my talk page*. And now I see that this user is giving 3Os on his own now. I don't think I was out of line in neutralizing his post and combining it with the other 3O request on the page at the time. And with his hot temper, I'm not wholly convinced that this guy should be giving 3Os. There is always the chance that I was out of line, and so if I was, please let me know. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(*Now in User talk:HelloAnnyong/Archive 6#Summary removal of disputes.)

I don't think he's ready to give third opinions under the project's aegis, and I think this issue should be aired on Wikipedia talk:Third opinion pronto. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(See here for his third opinion.) — Athaenara ✉ 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh of relief* Thanks. I've started a thread on the talk page. I'm not really sure how much we can do here, though.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I'm sure you saw the talk page, but in case you didn't, the thread* is active again, and I brought up our previous conversation. So I'm really just letting you know that you've been mentioned over there. I was trying to disengage by letting it fizzle, but it seems that he keeps poking at it.. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping an eye on the thread and approve the neutral input from uninvolved editors. Don't be provoked by his antagonism, just ignore it. — Athaenara ✉ 23:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dunmanway

Hi, I see you've removed Dunmanway Massacre from third opinion because there are six or more involved in the dispute. Where can I refer the dispute if third opinion is not applicable? Jdorney (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the {{dispute-resolution}} sidebar on the project page. — Athaenara ✉ 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion

Hi, I noticed that you've been archiving by hand. Do you have a preference for doing this or would it be okay if I added automatic archiving to this page using User:MiszaBot? This could archive any thread with no discussion for a chosen period (something like 60 days might work well).—Ash (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MiszaBot I's archiving is great for big noticeboards (WP:AN and WP:ANI have hundreds of archives each) and contentious pages like Talk:India (up to 26 archives so far) or Talk:Catholic Church (39 going on 40).

Tiny WT:3O doesn't need that much automated attention. — Athaenara ✉ 22:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010

Los Angeles CSA

→ in re: Talk:Los Angeles metropolitan area#CSA

Hi there!

Could you take a look at Talk:Los Angeles#CSA. We need a 3rd opinion, since I saw you do some work on wiki's 3O, and if you dont sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks House1090 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finding the discussion took some time, plus more to figure out what CSA means (combined statistical area). I see that two 3rd opinions were posted yesterday. — Athaenara ✉ 11:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thansk!

...for this. I find errors of orthography deeply humiliating! Consider also throwing your opinion in the ring over there. --Asdfg12345 14:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're wlecome! – Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoodSearch

→ in re: GoodSearch dispute (article history, talk history)

Thank you for helping with the dispute over GoodSearch. Understand and agree. Uptodateinfo —Preceding undated comment added 10:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You are welcome. – Athaenara ✉ 11:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of aviation

Hi. [I'm semi-randomly asking you, as one of the last active admins to edit the talkpage. Possibly it should be delegated to a WP:AVIATION admin instead.] At Talk:Timeline of aviation, a new editor has inquired about repercussions/sanctions for insults/libelous comments, amongst other queries. I'm not sure how the WP:NPA rules are applied to comments on talkpages, about non-contributors (NPA seems to be entirely focused on editors). Please advise, or assist. Much thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited that page only twice, to provide a section heading and to subst unsignedIP in mid-August.

Sorry, I don't want to be involved in it. Try WP:EAR? – Athaenara ✉ 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And the pointer does help. (so many noticeboards! I'm only familiar with a few dozen of them... ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion request

Hello,

Can you please advise me of your opinion of the POV complaint at Talk:Collective salvation? I would appreciate that. Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you asked me. Why not list it at WP:3O? – Athaenara ✉ 02:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One learns something every day! Thank you! Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011

Costoboci disagreement

Hi! I saw you removed the Costoboci disagreement without allowing a neutral 3rd party to express his views. Note, it is not linked to the Dacian script dispute which had enough reviews. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the two listings as of your edit yesterday (diff):

1. User talk:Andrei nacu#Dacians as Slavs, Costoboci uncertain on the Roman Empire Map? Disagreement over removing Dacian distinct group from Roman Empire Map File:Roman Empire 125.svg and File:Roman Empire 125.png, and from the corresponding commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg and commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png. Please check all talk sections till the bottom of the page at User talk:Andrei nacu#Response to above discussions as they are multiple. Also, discussions are open in the image talk pages and on some pages using this map. Also see original research notice 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
2. Costoboci, Disagreement over using the commons:File:Roman Empire 125.svg or commons:File:Roman Empire 125.png in the article, per original research notice. 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please read the first two paragraphs of the Wikipedia:Third opinion project description and the further emphasis on its listing guidelines in the third and fourth paragraphs. The multi-editor disputes in which you have been involved (and about which you have been engaging in considerable canvassing) are not suited to WP:3O's scope. – Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've been trying to get attention to the fact that multiple articles are affected by different disputes, plagued with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:EW. It is not easy to manage WP:DAC. The subject Dacia is full of controversies, nationalism from all directions, severe haters and lovers. I proposed collaborations, I suggested to editors to work first on their user space or the WikiProject Dacia drafts space. I didn't realize all this is canvassing, although I've seen it done by virtually anyone around this topic. Currently their are conflicts at Costoboci, Carpi (people) and the Map of Roman Empire. Some people work in groups, canvassing. I believe neutral points of views is what we need the most, but if I can't request them, I am not sure what else can be done. Please give me some suggestions on how to manage all this and bring the balance. I am open to anything. Thanks a lot! --Codrin.B (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you missed the {{dispute-resolution}} sidebar on the WP:3O page. I did ask you to read it. – Athaenara ✉ 23:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

→ see also: RfM history and RfM talk history

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually involved, posted on RfM talk page (diff). – Athaenara ✉ 10:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirit Level book dispute

Clear some things up

Awhile ago you posted a third opinion on The Spirit Level article here and it caused some confusion. You stated that multiple sources as well as notability were needed to make an addition to the article. For future reference: 1) Multiple sources are not needed to add material to an established article. If you look at the WP:Verifiability policy, it states that only one source is needed, by using the word source in the singular. This is also made clear by the fact that lots of information in articles on Wikipedia only have one source attributed to them. 2) Regarding notability, if you look at the WP:Notability policy it states, "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list". In other words, notability is only required for the creation of the article itself, not for everything contained in the article. Also, see the section (here). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was an independent third opinion, not a policy decision or an administrative action, and it was three months ago (diff). I don't know why the editors of that article have been having so much difficulty resolving their disagreements, but I am not and will not be involved. I regret that my honest attempt to help by responding to a WP:3O request failed. – Athaenara ✉ 03:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-assisted gaming

Hi! At Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute I read this: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." Do you see something different? Because I note that you have restored a 3O request that I had removed, for an article where the matter has not been discussed at all, in any way, on the article talk page. One of us is misreading those listing instructions; obviously, I don't think it is me, though I'm always open to correction. What do you think? Cordially, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most are on article talk pages but, as in this case (see User talk:MrOllie/Archive 3#Computer assisted gaming), disputes listed are not infrequently on user talk pages as well. The location of the dispute ("talk page discussion" currently in 2nd paragraph) is not a technical requirement for 3O, and if memory serves me the project page used to mention that (HelloAnnYong, RegentsPark, or other longtime 3Oers may recall or be able to dig it up). I do think transparency is best maintained when article disputes are on the associated article talk pages but people who are disagreeing about something on Wikipedia don't always land there first. – Athaenara ✉ 10:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Athaenara. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 11:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia user page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site.

The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_3.