User:Rockycape
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing own comments
Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board
 | This user is a member of WikiProject Games |
 | This user is a participant in WikiProject Categories. |
I don't think I can afford to spend as much time here moving forwards . . .
. . . real life beckons[citation needed].
Third opinion disputes
 | The third opinion process is neither mandatory nor binding. This is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal process, enabling two editors involved in a current dispute to seek advice from an uninvolved third party. |
Third opinion (3O) is a means to request an outside opinion in a content or sourcing disagreement between two editors. When two editors do not agree, either editor may list a discussion here to seek a third opinion. The third opinion process requires observance of good faith and civility from both editors during the discussion in order to be successful.
The less formal nature of the third opinion process is a major advantage over other methods of resolving disputes. For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment.
How to list a dispute
[edit]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. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute. Otherwise, please follow other methods in the dispute resolution process such as the dispute resolution noticeboard or request for comment. 3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation. Further guidance is available in Third Opinion frequently asked questions.
It is recommended that the filing editor notify the second editor about the post here. If the second editor disagrees with this process, the first editor still has the right to receive a third opinion; however, since this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to.
In cases involving long discussions or topics requiring prior technical knowledge, editors are requested to present a short summary of the dispute, in plain English and preferably in a new subsection below the main discussion, so that 3O volunteers may find it easier to respond to.
Some disputes may involve editor conduct issues as well as issues regarding article content. In such cases, the third opinion request should be framed in terms of content issues, even if the conduct of an editor is also at issue. For disputes that are exclusively about an editor's conduct and are not related to a content issue, other forums may be more appropriate such as the administrators noticeboard. If in doubt, post your request here at third opinion and a neutral editor will help out.
Instructions
[edit]No discussion of the issue should take place here—this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.
Follow these instructions to make your post:
- Edit the following "Active disagreements" section on this page to begin a new entry in the section. Your entry should be at the end of the list if there are other entries, and the first character should be a # symbol to create a numbered list. This preserves the numbering and chronological order of the list.
- Your entry should contain the following:
- a section link to a section on the article's talk page dedicated to the 3O discussion.
- a brief neutral description of the dispute—no more than a line or two—without trying to argue for or against either side. Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
- a date, but no signature. You can add the date without your name by using five tildes (~~~~~). (Note: your name will still be shown in your contributions and the page edit history.)
- Be sure to provide a notification of your request on the page where the dispute is occurring.
Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion—indicate that it's been re-listed in your entry. If removed a second time due to no volunteer giving an opinion, please do not relist again.
If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer.
Active disagreements
[edit] | After reading the above instructions, add your dispute to this section, below this message.
If you provide a third opinion, please remove the entry from this list. Example entry:# Talk:Turnitin#Copyright infringement in countries where fair use does not exist. Disagreement about relevance of section and sources. 12:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) |
<onlyinclude>
- Talk:International Committee of the Red Cross#Removal of 'Criticism' section Dispute regarding whether or not to remove a criticism section. 18:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- Talk:BiglyBT#Tags Dispute over whether a notability and primary-sourcing tag should remain on the article. 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:A picture of you#"Welcome_to_Wikipedia!" Should this essay begin with the phrase "welcome to Wikipedia"? 16:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Feedback
[edit]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, helping us to maintain and improve the standards of our work. If a respondent's third opinion was especially helpful or wise, you might want to consider awarding {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|your message}} on their user talk page. It can also be given once for diligent service to this project which is generally any volunteer who has more than 50 edits to this page. For more information see its documentation and Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log.
Providing third opinions
[edit]
When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Please mention in the edit summary how many disputes remain. Example of summary message: 5 items remain on the list
- Third opinions must be neutral. If you have had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute that would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute.
- Read the arguments of the disputants.
- Do not provide opinions recklessly. Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote. In some cases both sides may have presented valid arguments, or you may disagree with both. Provide the reasoning behind your argument.
- Provide third opinions in the relevant section of the disputed article talk pages following the discussion of the dispute. Sign your comments with four tildes, like so: ~~~~.
- Write your opinion in a civil and nonjudgmental way.
- Unless there's a clearly urgent problem, don't make immediate article-content changes of your own which affect the ongoing discussion.
- 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}} on the talk page of the article. This template will post sections for the disputing editors to summarize their opinions.
- 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}}.
Use template
[edit]- The {{3OR}} template is handy for providing a third opinion on the talk page. For a shorter alternative, {{3ORshort}} can also be used. Usage (either):
{{subst:3OR|<your response>}}
{{subst:3ORshort|<your response>}}
Declining requests
[edit]If you remove a dispute from the list for any reason, it is good practice to also leave a message on the dispute talk page explaining what you have done. The message should have the following characteristics:
- It should be civil and assume the request was made in good faith.
- It should explain why the request was declined (e.g. "There are too many people involved already.")
- It should suggest alternatives (e.g. "Perhaps you should try WP:Requests for Comment, the dispute resolution noticeboard, the talk page of a Wikiproject or one of the other WP:Dispute resolution options.")
Volunteers
[edit]Active contributors who watchlist the page, review disputes, and update the list of active disagreements with informative edit summaries, are welcome to add themselves to the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions. If you support this project you may wish to add the {{User Third opinion}} userbox to your user page, which automatically adds you to this category.
Adding {{Third opinion}} to your dashboard or userpage will produce or transclude only the active disagreements for viewing. Sample code with additional links:
Third opinion disputes {{Wikipedia:Third Opinion}}<small>[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Third opinion|action=edit§ion=3}} update], {{purge}}</small>
- Significant coverage. The sources must discuss your subject in depth, in multiple paragraphs. A mention in one or two sentences or the appearance of your subject in a table or list is not enough to help establish notability.
User:Clovermoss/Editor_reflections
User:0xDeadbeef U4C on en.wikipedia.org
User:Barkeep49 U4C on en.wikipedia.org
This account is primarily a single-purpose account (WP:SPA) focussed on content about Downball or Draft:Downball_(wall_and_ball_game) or User:Rockycape/sandbox/Downball
User:Rockycape/sandbox/CategorySquares and ball games
- Category:Ball games
- Category:Squares and ball games
- Category:Wall and ball games
- Category:Ball games
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Outreach
Category --> Subcategory etc
Why do I contribute to wikipedia? I contribute to wikipedia because it's one of the places on the internet without advertisements that anyone can create & edit articles. Wikipedia has guidelines and restrictions in place that are necessary so that anyone can create & edit articles.
As long as Wiki exists, part of its raison d'etre is to encourage people to play a part in it. This also means stressing the areas which are not adequately covered, in the hope of encouraging somebody to play a part. If all Wiki's weak areas were reduced to articles with no links to even stubs, then there is no incentive for knowledgable people to contribute - strangers may not even realise they have the opportunity to contribute.
Why don't I contribute to wikipedia more than I do?
"The few times I’ve touched wikipedia, I’ve been struck by how isolating it can feel. It’s a very fend for yourself kind of place for me. Anywhere else online, my first impulse is to put out feelers. I make friends, ask for links to FAQs and guides, and inevitably someone takes me under their wing and shows me the ropes of whatever niche culture I’m obsessed with that month. It’s very collaborative, and prioritizes friendships and enjoyment of pre-existing work over results. Wikipedia isn’t like that, as far as I’ve experienced. There’s no reciprocal culture; to just plunge oneself into the thick of things and start adding information can be highly intimidating, and there’s no structure set up to find like-minded people to assist one’s first attempts. Instead I just find lots and lots of links to lots of information-dense pages."[1]
citation needed[citation needed]
People who use WP expect when they look for an article, to find something. [1]
Notability. All articles must be about subjects that are important enough. We call this notability. If the subject is not notable, its article may get deleted by an administrator – and sometimes rather quickly! For example, we have a lot of articles about bands. The Beatles were a very famous and important band because their songs left their mark on society forever, but the band that practices in your neighbor's garage is not likely to be ready for a Wikipedia article for a long time, even if they played at the school prom.[2]
Verifiability#Responsibility_for_providing_citations wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org
Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time
Wikipedia:Likely_to_be_challenged If, based on your experience, a given statement has a less than 50% chance of being challenged, then inline citations are not required for that material.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Wikipedia:Articles_written_by_a_single_editor/Articles_list Wikipedia:Merge what?
User:Snotbot/AfD's_requiring_attention
User:Cyberbot_I/AfD's_requiring_attention
Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Australia
Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Joe_Lonsdale
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Wikipedia:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia?
Blow football stub
User:Dream_Focus We need an option to inform us if someone is trying to delete an article we like(in its entirety or just a significant percentage of it) without having to get constant notifications every time one thing or another is edited in it. Not something decided in this particular election, but just wanted to get that out there. Suggestion: Add the not-yet-created AfD page of the article you like to your watchlist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron
Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Depth of Coverage: The sources should cover hopscotch in a substantial way, not just in passing. This means the sources provide detailed information, such as its history, variations, cultural significance, rules, and impact.
Sustained Coverage: The coverage should not be fleeting or trivial. It should demonstrate that hopscotch is of lasting interest and importance, not just a temporary fad.
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Downball 2011
Talk:Four_square#Downball 2018
lifecycle of "Down-ball" wikipedia page:
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-ball
- User_talk:Rockycape#Proposed_deletion_of_Down-ball - If a Wikipedia article is tagged with "PROD," it means it has been proposed for deletion. "PROD" stands for "Proposed Deletion." This tagging is used by editors to suggest that an article may not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and may be deleted. The article usually stays in the mainspace for a short period, typically seven days, during which other editors can discuss and decide whether to keep or delete the article. If no consensus is reached or no improvement is made, the article may be deleted.
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Down-ball
- Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Down-ball
- Draft:Downball_(wall_and_ball_game)
Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles
Tool to find active admins on recently
Category:WikiProject Categories participants
- Delete. Did someone say TNT?