| Revision as of 22:35, 6 April 2009 edit99.130.163.56 (talk) →Active disagreements← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:08, 6 April 2009 edit undoAthaenara (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users54,866 edits →Active disagreements: Talk:Field emission display#Revert to previous non-narrative revision dispute seems to have been resolved: removing. 6 items in listNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| <!-- Add your dispute at the BOTTOM OF THE LIST BELOW.--> | <!-- Add your dispute at the BOTTOM OF THE LIST BELOW.--> | ||
| # ]. Incremental vs. bulk replacement of material 00:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| # ]. Dispute over the citations used not meeting Wiki standards for ], original research based on opinion or other unreliable or unsourced citations or citations that do not verify the statements, and non-neutral point of view. 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | # ]. Dispute over the citations used not meeting Wiki standards for ], original research based on opinion or other unreliable or unsourced citations or citations that do not verify the statements, and non-neutral point of view. 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| #] and ] Dispute over whether a music project is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages 12:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | #] and ] Dispute over whether a music project is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages 12:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 52: | ||
| # ]. Dispute over whether this subject is notable enough for a standalone article or whether page should be a redirect. 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | # ]. Dispute over whether this subject is notable enough for a standalone article or whether page should be a redirect. 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| # ]. Dispute over inclusion of templates on main article. 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | # ]. Dispute over inclusion of templates on main article. 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| # | |||
| ==Providing third opinions== | ==Providing third opinions== | ||
Revision as of 23:08, 6 April 2009
"WP:3" redirects here. For You may be looking for Misplaced Pages:Trifecta or Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule., see WP:3 (disambiguation). | This process is neither official nor mandatory. Rather, it is a non-binding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an unbiased third party. | Shortcuts |
| Dispute resolution (Requests) |
|---|
| Tips |
| Content disputes |
| Conduct disputes |
Third opinion is a means to request an outside opinion in a dispute between two editors. When two editors cannot agree, either editor may list a dispute here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute.
This page is primarily for informally resolving disputes involving only two editors. If any more complex dispute cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, you can follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process. The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.
Respondents appreciate feedback about the outcome of the dispute, either on the article's talk page or on their own talk page. We want to know whether the outcome was positive or not and this helps us to maintain and improve the standards of our work.
How to list a dispute
Be sure to discuss the dispute on the talk page as the first step in the process before making a request here. If, after discussion, only two editors are involved, you may list the dispute below in the Active disagreements section. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process.
Follow these instructions to make your post:
- Begin a new entry with a # symbol below earlier entries to preserve the numbering and chronological order of the list.
- Provide a section link to the specific talk page section followed by a brief neutral description of the dispute.
- Sign with five tildes (~~~~~) to add the date without your name. This is important to maintain neutrality.
Do not discuss on this page: confine the discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.
| Example entry: |
| # ]. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. ~~~~~ |
| Example displayed: |
| 1. Talk:List of Cuban Americans#List Clean-up. Disagreement about notability of names added to list. 21:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC) |
You may also consider adding {{3O}} to the top of the article. List of tagged articles.
Active disagreements
| After reading the above instructions, add your dispute here. If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list. |
- Talk:Scottish American#Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Dispute over the citations used not meeting Wiki standards for peer review, original research based on opinion or other unreliable or unsourced citations or citations that do not verify the statements, and non-neutral point of view. 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- User talk:Kimchi.sg and User talk:Wolrab Dispute over whether a music project is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion on Misplaced Pages 12:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:WWVB#Request additional opinions on DST bits. Dispute over which description of DST warning bits 57 and 58 in WWVB time code broadcast is preferable. 21:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Tupac Shakur#Likely vandal at Tupac Shakur. An editor named User:Johnnymurda is contesting two reliable sources for pretty much no real reason. Need someone to comment in the third opinion section. 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Harvey's Dream#Notability of this short story - Redirect?. Dispute over whether this subject is notable enough for a standalone article or whether page should be a redirect. 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei#POV flag. Dispute over inclusion of templates on main article. 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Providing third opinions
- Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
- Read the arguments of the disputants.
- Do not provide third opinions recklessly. Remember that Misplaced Pages works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide reasoning behind your argument.
- Provide third opinions on the disputed article talk pages, not on this page. Sign your comments on the associated talk page as normal, with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
- Consider keeping pages on which you have given a third opinion on your watchlist for a few days. Often, articles listed here are watched by very few people.
- If it's not clear what the dispute is, put {{subst:third opinion|your_username}} in a new section on the talk page of the article.
- For third opinion requests that do not follow the instructions above, it is possible to alert the requesting party to that fact by employing {{uw-3o}}.
- When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page and mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. If this is done before responding, other volunteers are less likely to duplicate your effort.
- Check the article for a {{3O}} tag. Be sure to remove this tag from the article and/or talk page.
If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page.
Active contributors (those who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries) may add themselves to the Category:Third opinion Wikipedians.
Categories: