This is an archive of discussions from December 2006 through April 2008.
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 →

Contents 1 Third opinion project 1.1 WP:3O discussions 2006 1.1.1 Naming conventions 1.2 WP:3O discussions 2007 1.2.1 Talk pages 1.2.2 Pike disambig 1.2.3 Kingsmill massacre 1.2.4 Infobox 1.2.5 X Japan 1.2.6 Thanks for your intervention 1.2.7 Loudness war 1.2.8 House swapping 1.2.9 MedCab 1.2.10 Global tag on Anti-Europeanism 1.2.11 Tassajara 1.2.12 What happened to dex request 1.2.13 Great stuff 1.2.14 The Geoeg problem 1.2.15 Thanks and a question 1.2.16 Thanks for the edit 1.2.17 Collaboration 1.2.18 Thanks for correcting my entry 1.3 WP:3O discussions 2008 1.3.1 3O - Quackwatch 1.3.2 Barnstar 1.3.3 Killian documents 1.3.4 Justin Chadwick 1.3.5 Pelasgians 1.3.6 Environmental issues 1.3.7 List of Geordies 1.3.8 KARE-TV 1.3.9 Rafael Correa 1.3.10 Westfield Doncaster

Third opinion project

WP:3O discussions 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)

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)

→ (The context of PTO's post is now preserved in User:Athaenara/Comedy.)

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)

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)

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)

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)

WP:3O discussions 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

Kingsmill massacre

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)

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)

Infobox

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

→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)"

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

Question for mediator Cool Blue:

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

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

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)

→ 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)

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)

Tassajara

→ (In re: Tassajara Zen Mountain Center and request for a third opinion)

Hello! I´m thw1309. You asked for a third opignion about the article Tassajara. Please could you explain your opignion about the changes, which were removed on the article´s talkpage. --Thw1309 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted on Talk:Tassajara Zen Mountain Center#Content. — Athaenara ✉ 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Great stuff

→ In re: Miranda Devine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) & Talk:Miranda Devine (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

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)

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

The Geoeg problem

→ In re: Geoeg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (blocked indefinitely as of 7 November)
→ See also: Requests for comment/Geoeg, where discussions on several noticeboards are linked.

3O on Vaníček analysis?

You took the 3O note down, but you haven't comment on Talk:Vaníček analysis. Are you going to? Dicklyon 04:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As my edit summary said, I removed it because there was a third editor who was participating (Zvika). As you've indicated that it still needs a third opinion, though, I've re-instated it. (See also: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg.) — Athaenara ✉ 04:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks; I had misunderstood your summary. Zvika didn't really give an opinion on the topic we were discussing, which is whether to move the page. Thanks for commenting on the other one. Dicklyon 04:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome—see also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/#User Geoeg. — Athaenara ✉ 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to report his recent comments on Wikiquette or some place? Is there any suggested strategy for getting him to grow up and stop the personal attacks, besides banning him? Dicklyon 21:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Your participation is welcome on both Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User Geoeg and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User Geoeg. By the way, your ability to remain calm and civil in spite of that user's insults and provocation has been remarkable! — Athaenara ✉ 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've found that getting agitated just makes on part of the problem instead of part of the solution. Dicklyon 21:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As he's continued with posts and edit summaries like [1][2][3][4] I am really surprised that he hasn't yet been blocked. — Athaenara ✉ 04:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Probably because nobody has asked to have him blocked. I might soon. Dicklyon 04:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

True, it should probably be posted on WP:ANI. — Athaenara ✉ 04:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Geoeg is now blocked for 3RR for 48 hours. But he has removed your COI tag from Petr Vanicek, and I have been advised to not touch it myself. I appreciate your support in dealing with this pushy newbie. Dicklyon 23:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The primary sources tag is probably the right alternative to the note tag I was using; at least it won't be opposed by anyone reasonable. By the way, it appears that footnotes are allowed either before or after punctuation. You and I prefer after, but should we be pushing that point here? I stopped after the first time he reverted me on it; or was it the second? Dicklyon 23:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the punctuation issue (I haven't changed that except when editing a line substantively) is small enough to simply be ignored until the user's far more disruptive policy violation issues have finally been dealt with effectively. — Athaenara ✉ 01:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment: As the user is still tirelessly generating further antagonism (even while blocked), I think it would be wise if you stopped responding to it. What do you think? — Athaenara ✉ 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try that for a while. I'm still working on the articles, and still clinging to the hope that he'll learn a bit and not just charge back in and start reverting, but maybe he'll learn better on his own. I'll shut up for at least 30 hours now. Dicklyon 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Good plan. I recommend an entire week ;-)   — Athaenara ✉ 22:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will attempt to ignore his comments to me indefinitely. But I may have to react to his article edits if someone else doesn't within a reasonable time; I'll try to give a day of delay if he's not doing too much damage. Thanks for the advice; I know I get too caught up in his game. Dicklyon 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's back, and worse than ever. When I got back from my brief (today only) trip this evening I found personal attacks on all the talk pages, and reverts to his Vanicek-centric POV in the articles (plus he reverted a changed ref from an independent one back to the one that I presume is by himself, or in any case an ex-student of Vanicek); and he keeps claiming I told him I'd be gone for two days. And he denies having said this when I tried to explain why Einstein might be notable but some others might not be. I'm starting to prepare a user conduct RFC about him; are you willing to sign on as one who tried to resolve the dispute about his conduct? Dicklyon 05:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. — Athaenara ✉ 11:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. — Athaenara ✉ 00:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Help! I'm back-sliding. Can't help self... Dicklyon 05:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion about this edit: why not, for now, let both citations be in the article, leaving the more problem-ridden question of whether the citation Geoeg prefers should be in it at all for a later and perhaps more dispassionate analysis? He certainly should not be removing the {{COI2}} template, or the Cornette citation either. — Athaenara ✉ 05:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I restored the other temporarily, simply to reduce what Geoeg apparently sees as invitations to edit war. — Athaenara ✉ 05:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, though referencing a guy's student for what his method is called certainly doesn't pass what I'd call WP:RS. Dicklyon 06:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. My interim edit was designed to address the temporary problem of a belligerent and antagonistic SPA editor, whose COI (and perhaps his paycheck, who knows?) drives him, who not yet been restrained from indefatigable edit warring over minutiae. — Athaenara ✉ 06:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's seems odd to me that while Geoeg has been busily deleting and adding posts on his talk page (recent contribs beginning here) during his third block, he has shown no interest (unless this was interest five days ago) in participating on his user Rfc. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

→ In re: Cuban sandwich (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) and edits by 68.155.121.7 (talk)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

WP:3O discussions 2008

3O - Quackwatch

→ In re: Talk:Quackwatch (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Killian documents

→ See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)/Archive 7#What to do about user circumventing WP:DR.

I've never tried to figure out WP:3O; it seemed very complicated, and it had many rules. However this capability is surprising and impressive. I note that WQA is in trouble, perhaps because they seldom tell people to go away. It seems that you guys, who have some similarity to WQA in your motivation, have mastered the ability to send away disputes you don't want to entertain. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As eloquent as EdJohnston is, I have no intention of letting this go with a snide quip. I have asked for advice in the Village Pump and have every intention of following this up with an entry in AN/I if needs be. This was way out of bounds and I will find the appropriate response. Please try and refrain from further co-opting WP policy until I can get this answered. Padillah (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Dispute resolution involves several projects. Third opinion is only one of them, and the smallest. It was designed to address only disputes described in neutral terms between two editors who are engaging with civility. — Athaenara ✉ 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I posted diffs on WT:3O. — Athaenara ✉ 17:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you are going to be helpful and rational about this then we'll never get anywhere! Thanks for taking this so well, I hope I wasn't harsh, if I was please let me know so I can correct my presentation (see above sarcasm). Padillah (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed sent this message:

Sorry for my tactless remark about WP:3O which may have caused some trouble. I see some of the advantages of sending email rather than posting on User talk pages; it causes fewer ripples!

It was an anomaly, feel free to be tactless here (I didn't think you were). — Athaenara ✉ 01:20-14:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Killian pile

→ In re: Talk:Killian documents (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

Don't archive any Killian stuff for a while. Looks like someone finally wants to get more attention rather than cause a miracle himself, and people will need to see what is there. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the heads-up. — Athaenara ✉ 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

Callmebc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) again indefinitely blocked.

See also: Talk:Killian documents‎#Callmebc. — Athaenara ✉ 12:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Justin Chadwick

→ In re: Talk:Justin Chadwick (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Pied

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

List of Geordies

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

For comparison:

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

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

See also Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#Forwarded post. — Athaenara ✉ 06:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

KARE-TV

→ In re: Talk:KARE (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

You are welcome, and thank you for your note.

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

→ 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)

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)

Rafael Correa

→ In re: Talk:Rafael Correa (edit|article|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

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

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)

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

Westfield Doncaster

→ In re: Westfield Doncaster (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

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)

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)

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara/Archive_3.