| Revision as of 10:54, 2 June 2006 editIlir pz (talk | contribs)2,168 edits Kosovo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:15, 16 December 2024 edit undoVoorts (talk | contribs)Administrators20,618 edits →Premature AOC request: replyTag: CD | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{tmbox | type = content | text = <center><big>'''''Please do not list Third Opinion requests on this page.'''''</big><br/>''Instead'' list them in the ] of the ]<br/>after reading the instructions at the top of that page.</center>}} | |||
| == Initial discussion copied from ] == | |||
| {{talkheader|WT:3O}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Dispute Resolution}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 10 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive =Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| == User FAQ == | |||
| I've just had an idea. Say two Wikipedians are arguing over some obscure page, watched by no one but them. (This has happened to me.) All they need is a third opinion - someone to break the tie. Hence, ]. This will be a constantly changing page on which controversies involving '''only two''' Wikipedians are listed, so that a tiebreaker may be found. If a third opinion is provided otherwise, the controversy should be delisted. If a user decides to provide such a third opinion, he should remove the controversy from the page. This will ensure that the page will not be cluttered, and will allow for third opinions to be delivered with haste. What do you think? — ] (]) 00:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * ''See ]'' | |||
| == clarification on third opinion request == | |||
| :Surely this is just the same as ]? ]\<sup><font color="gray">]</font></sup> 00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| @] When I made my third opinion request, I was specifically referring to only my dispute with Mason.Jones. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, mediation is more complex and takes more time, and other steps are supposed to be taken first. I like this this idea a lot. It's like a streamlined version of ]. ] 05:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, more like ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:37, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::It doesn't matter just what it is, but yes, the idea is to allow conflicts to be resolved quickly. "Controversy", by the way, is maybe too strong a word. I was thinking more along the lines of "content dispute". — ] (]) 21:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :That wasn't clear (to me) from your filing, as the section you linked to unambiguously had more than two editors involved. You're welcome to relist, but I might suggest breaking off the pertinent dispute into its own section first so that it's more clear where the specific dispute with only two involved editors lies. If/when you've done that and wish to relist, I'm happy to strike my comment from the Talk page. ] (]) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| ::I have created the subsection. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wish to relist also. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. ] (]) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've recently removed my 3O request, I'm conceding this dispute now because I honestly do not have the capacity to continue it. ―<span style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1px; border-radius: 5px;">] • ]</span> 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Two difficulties == | ||
| Intermittently I have been sharing my third opinion. I find following difficulties. | |||
| I've put a suggested formatting up on the project page. The content should probably be rephrased entirely - I did my best - but I just want to get a feel on whether people find this formatting appropriate. If you disagree with the formatting or the content, simply modify the project page. Once formatting and content are decided upon, we can see if this can be integrated into the Misplaced Pages dispute-solving procedures. In the meanwhile, hack away. — ] (]) 21:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 1) We do not have system of getting notified when a 3O request comes. | |||
| ==RFC== | |||
| 2) Other than few exceptions most users do not provide reasonable enough summary -at the article talk page dispute section- as has been suggested. Practically for us it becomes ] issue | |||
| We might want to eventually link this from ]. ] 08:34, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I suppose two of above reasons may cause some ] requests going unattended. Idk if these issues have been discussed previously and also do not know, can there be any solution to it? | |||
| :I've put a note at ]. — ] (]) 08:45, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Thought sharing is better than not sharing it. ] (]) 08:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that redirects back to here. Do you think this is ready to go? I don't see why anyone would object. I think we might also want to link it from a general dispute resolution page. ] 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :On 1), I find watchlisting works well. 2) is an occasional problem, but if you ask the involved editors for a summary they normally give it (maybe with some arguing). ] (]) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I've also found watchlisting works, particularly when the "xxx remaining" convention is used on edit summaries. – ] (]) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::], ] - I just read this. I haven't been active in ] recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. ] (]) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed that watchlisting tends to be sufficient for seeing new notifications and that, if you want to weigh in on a dispute but aren't sure you understand it, there's nothing wrong with asking for a summation, and that, as noted, the editors simply providing such may move them toward a resolution. ] (]) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Help! == | |||
| :::I think I was confused earlier. Anyway, I've linked Third opinion from the project page at ] and asked at ] about linking from there also. ] 02:56, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
| {{Help me-helped}} | |||
| I tried to request a third opinion on the project page but probably made some mistake and so, what I typed is not visible. Please correct it.-] (]) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Fixed, but the request has been removed because there was no attempt at discussion at the relevant talk page. ] (]) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} There has been a discussion so please add my request back.-] (]) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Ganeemath}} A discussion?! You have replied to each other ''once'', and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to attempt to resolve disagreements ''yourself''. Seeking ] to do that job is the last resort. ] (]) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-] (]) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Ganesmath}} No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called ''talking'' with them? ] (]) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} We have ''talked'' on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-] (]) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} Now, he is removing more text from ]. See , and edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-] (]) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page {{u|Ganeemath}}? ] (]) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} Please do. {{noping|IntGrah}} is removing text from the ] article. See , and edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here. He is even defending the removals . He has even reverted sourced content with edit. Then, when I propose what can be added with sources, he doesn't bother to respond!-] (]) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Disagreement on whether there is an issue of reliable sources (and several others) leading to the (un)deletion of a section of the article == | |||
| == Merge? == | |||
| I see the editor is blocked for edit warring, in any case there were 3 other editors involved including me. Sorry about signing, ] ] 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I was going to merge this into ] but then it struck me that this procedure seems to be working well for 'smaller' disputes and that the two complement each other quite nicely. Please tell me if I'm right? ]]] 08:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I wouldn't worry about it too much. The editor being blocked is secondary to the fact that there were already more than two involved editors. I'm also not sure an RSN dispute is really appropriate for filing here (though I'm not sure it does any harm either). ] (]) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I prefer to keep this separate. ] ] 15:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries. I agree noticeboard disputes should not be listed here since 3O is a different form of article dispute resolution. ] (]/]) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Premature AOC request == | ||
| It appears that the current request involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's placement in ] has not been discussed to a greater extent than two talk page messages. ]<sub>]<sub>]</sub></sub> (]/]) 23:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like it to be understood, first, that I'm not criticizing the idea of having a page to get third opinions on disputes. I think it's an excellent idea. The problem I have is that by its current structure, the first person who decides to report the dispute gets to present his/her side of the dispute -- and silence the other side, it seems from those who try to reply being told "This is not the place for this discussion." There would be no problem ''if'' people abided completely by the instructions to provide one-line, unsigned, neutral summaries, but a quick look at the page shows how many people fail to follow even the first two non-subjective parts of the instruction. Taking it as a given, then, that people are and will continue to provide biased summaries of the disputes, allowing the dispute to be characterized solely by the first side to bring it to WP:3O seems rather unfair. | |||
| :You can remove it from the list and leave a note on the discussion that the request is premature. ] (]/]) 00:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| An example is one of the disputes which has just been brought to WP:3O for the second time, where the nominator tries to draw a connection between a disputed sentence in one article and a number of VfDs that have been brought against other articles he feels are "his". From ''my'' perspective, the problem is ''exactly'' that he is publicly declaring that these VfDs are being brought because there is some sort of campaign against him, rather than because they are POV forks and personal essays -- not to mention that he is calling me a thought policeman, a vandal, a deletionist on behalf of the drug industry, etc. | |||
| Currently there is no requirement that an editor who lists a dispute on Third opinion must notify the other editor involved in the dispute, no matter how serious the allegations being lodged against that second editor. Even if that second editor becomes aware that the dispute has been listed there, he or she appears to have no recourse: since the first party is presumed (often falsely) to have followed the instructions to describe the dispute neutrally, the second party is not allowed to point out any facts the first editor left out or any different viewpoint on the matter. The second editor is either blindsided or left with nothing to do but merely hope that whoever steps in to give a "third opinion" actually takes the time to review the dispute in detail and glean from what could be a complicated history of the dispute the viewpoint of the second editor, which he has been barred from giving directly by the decisions of the first editor. These seem like structural flaws of the current set-up that severely limit its ability to resolve rather than exacerbate disputes. -- ] 17:29, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I understand your concern, but how would you improve it? Possibly the "third opinion" will take into account the fact the person listing the disagreement doesn't follow instructions at least. ] ] 18:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, someone may see flaws with this idea that elude me, but how about simply requiring that the editor who reports the dispute on WP:3O notify the editor he is disputing with and that editor gets the right to provide their version of the dispute if it differs from that of the first editor? If the first editor fails to notify the second, or if the second editor declines to respond, both of these can be taken into account. -- ] 23:08, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't object to requiring notification. But in my view, this page isn't the place to actually discuss the issues. That fragments the discussion. | |||
| :::For example, I think people should just say "Disagreement about foobar," and not go into any detail here. For one thing, that keeps everything streamlined. ] ] 23:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree -- this should not be the place for full-scale discussion. But since even editors disputing in good faith may have different ideas what the dispute is "about", it can harm the chances for getting the dispute actually resolved to take only one side's opinion what it's about. One editor may believe and state that the debate is ''about'' whether the information he's adding is correctly cited and referenced. If you ask the second editor, however, to him it's about whether the article needs more lengthy quotations from the article subject when they already outweigh objective information about the subject by a factor of eight to one. -- ] 00:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| OK. ] ] 04:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Anything anywhere to get info on staulking? ] 23:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Settle ] formatting, please == | |||
| Can we get someone to settle the ] pages, please. ] and I are in disagreement on how the page should look. ] 11:41 US EST Jan 12 2006. | |||
| ==3rd opinion on ]== | |||
| As the page clearly says, discussion needs to be made here rather than there. As we already discussed at the article talk page, there are only three editors involved in discussion there, and as Swatjester had listed me as a vandal a couple of days ago, which was quickly removed by an administrator, I do not regard him as a neutral third party. No fourth editor has edited on the article since the 3rd opinion was asked for. ] 01:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Urm == | |||
| Why only put the date stamp when you can see who wrote something by looking at the history? ] 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *It gives a veneer of anonymity at least, which I think is a useful thing. The user who actually posted the request is clearly identifiable but isn't at the center of it when you read it. (])<sup>(])</sup> 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *But sometimes the person who ''does'' bring it sometimes asserts himself into the center of it, by either removing references or merging before consensus (], for example). There is now a dispute at ], ], and ] in which neither editor is willing to accept the validity of the references the other has made in an attempt to make his point, and the two (one of whom is a colleague of mine) are at an impasse. ] 21:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I know I'm right, but I'm being tag-teamed. I will continue to revert your bull. --] (] - ] - ] - <small>]</small>) 21:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ***Yep, you picked a fight with two editors who work together at a Miami-area college. Your refusal to consider anything beside one self-conflicting source and a probable misinterpretation of facts landed us here. But you are not correct on either count - and the Misplaced Pages editors who read the articles and follow the histories (including at least two articles that you are trying vehemently to hide after putting one up for ]) can make up their independent minds. It's time for common sense to reign on this matter, and clearly we cannot rely on either "combatant" to have much common sense here. ] 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == 9/11 Commission Report == | |||
| Just wondering why was that listing inapropriate? --] 19:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Because "third opinion" implies that only two opinions currently exist, and the rules specify that it's for small conflicts involving only two editors (usually on obscure pages not getting much public scrutiny). The listing on the 9/11 Commission report already had many editors involved in the discussion. Those types of conflicts aren't likely to be helped by Third Opinion anyway, so they should go straight to mediation if civil discussion breaks down. ] 06:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Kosovo == | |||
| A recent dispute started in this article, recently, due to a revert war started, because of the intro-part of the article. A certain user ] kept insisting on a definition which violates the most important in force in Kosovo. The abovementioned law does NOT mention in any part of it, that Kosovo is a part of Serbia, but instead refers to it as a legally a part of Former ]. Kosovo is administered by and interim UN administration, according to that Resolution. The current version of the introduction in the article is consistent, and refers to the current facts on the ground. The compromise on that version was reached after a couple of months of negotiating of parties involved in the dispute, until the user above re-started inserting his pushy POV. Third opinion on this would be appreciated. It is advisable to followo the talk page on the article, where the discussion on the introduction part took place, to get a better picture of the dispute. Thanks in advance, ] 10:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:15, 16 December 2024
 | Instead list them in the Active Disagreements section of the main project page after reading the instructions at the top of that page. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Third opinion page. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
User FAQ
clarification on third opinion request
@Doniago When I made my third opinion request, I was specifically referring to only my dispute with Mason.Jones. ―Howard • 🌽 18:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- That wasn't clear (to me) from your filing, as the section you linked to unambiguously had more than two editors involved. You're welcome to relist, but I might suggest breaking off the pertinent dispute into its own section first so that it's more clear where the specific dispute with only two involved editors lies. If/when you've done that and wish to relist, I'm happy to strike my comment from the Talk page. DonIago (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created the subsection. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wish to relist also. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've recently removed my 3O request, I'm conceding this dispute now because I honestly do not have the capacity to continue it. ―Howard • 🌽 16:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection; I'll strike my comment on the Talk page where the dispute's occurring. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wish to relist also. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have created the subsection. ―Howard • 🌽 18:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Two difficulties
Intermittently I have been sharing my third opinion. I find following difficulties.
1) We do not have system of getting notified when a 3O request comes.
2) Other than few exceptions most users do not provide reasonable enough summary -at the article talk page dispute section- as has been suggested. Practically for us it becomes WP:TLDR issue
I suppose two of above reasons may cause some WP:3O requests going unattended. Idk if these issues have been discussed previously and also do not know, can there be any solution to it?
Thought sharing is better than not sharing it. Bookku (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- On 1), I find watchlisting works well. 2) is an occasional problem, but if you ask the involved editors for a summary they normally give it (maybe with some arguing). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've also found watchlisting works, particularly when the "xxx remaining" convention is used on edit summaries. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku, User:AirshipJungleman29 - I just read this. I haven't been active in Third Opinion recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that watchlisting tends to be sufficient for seeing new notifications and that, if you want to weigh in on a dispute but aren't sure you understand it, there's nothing wrong with asking for a summation, and that, as noted, the editors simply providing such may move them toward a resolution. DonIago (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- User:Bookku, User:AirshipJungleman29 - I just read this. I haven't been active in Third Opinion recently. I agree that it is often difficult to figure out what the question is, because the listed question is not always clearly stated, and the article talk page is often long and repetitive. I have sometimes found it necessary to ask them for a summary, and sometimes it isn't easy to get them to do that. However, sometimes when the two parties finally answer the third party's questions clearly, the issue may be partly resolved. So if it is necessary to ask them, ask them. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Help!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I tried to request a third opinion on the project page but probably made some mistake and so, what I typed is not visible. Please correct it.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed, but the request has been removed because there was no attempt at discussion at the relevant talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: There has been a discussion here so please add my request back.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ganeemath A discussion?! You have replied to each other once, and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to attempt to resolve disagreements yourself. Seeking another volunteer editor to do that job is the last resort. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ganesmath No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called talking with them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: We have talked on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Now, he is removing more text from Abdullah Azzam. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-Ganeemath (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page Ganeemath? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Please do. IntGrah is removing text from the Abdullah Azzam article. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here. He is even defending the removals here. He has even reverted sourced content with this edit. Then, when I propose what can be added here with sources, he doesn't bother to respond!-Ganeemath (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Now, you have had a discussion, and it is what seems like an appropriate time to ask for a 3O. Do you want me to orovide it, or another regular at this page Ganeemath? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Now, he is removing more text from Abdullah Azzam. See this, this and this edit. He is just removing text because he doesn't like it! Some dispute resolution is needed here.-Ganeemath (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: We have talked on the Talk page. I seem to be repeating myself there to no avail. We need a third opinion. Please restore my request for the 3rd opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ganesmath No. Other people have better things to do than figure out a dispute you can't be bothered to try to solve yourself. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and demanding that someone fix the issue, how about you treat the other editor like a person and ... do this thing called talking with them? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: He says that the sentence is cherry picked and I replied that it is the essence of the book which he will not agree to (I am sure). So we need some dispute resolution. Please restore my request for the third opinion.-Ganeemath (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ganeemath A discussion?! You have replied to each other once, and barely engaged with what the other person is saying. It is your job as a Misplaced Pages editor to attempt to resolve disagreements yourself. Seeking another volunteer editor to do that job is the last resort. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: There has been a discussion here so please add my request back.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Disagreement on whether there is an issue of reliable sources (and several others) leading to the (un)deletion of a section of the article
I see the editor is blocked for edit warring, in any case there were 3 other editors involved including me. Sorry about signing, Doug Weller talk 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it too much. The editor being blocked is secondary to the fact that there were already more than two involved editors. I'm also not sure an RSN dispute is really appropriate for filing here (though I'm not sure it does any harm either). DonIago (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- No worries. I agree noticeboard disputes should not be listed here since 3O is a different form of article dispute resolution. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Premature AOC request
It appears that the current request involving Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's placement in 2028 United States presidential election has not been discussed to a greater extent than two talk page messages. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- You can remove it from the list and leave a note on the discussion that the request is premature. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)