Wikipedia talk:Third opinion/Archive 2

message: So I provided my opinion on a third-opinion request (Talk:Frank Ticheli) the other day. One of the parties involved (specifically, User:71.51.41.2 (talk • contribs)) accused me of being a troll and vandal, and reverted the edit made in accordance with that opinion. I reverted it once again, and provided a clarification of my opinion on the Talk page in question. The angry user has declared this vandalism and restored the article to its highly questionable state. In fact, that's pretty much the sum total of this user's contributions to Wikipedia: adding this dubious paragraph and then reverting edits that try to remove or improve it. I'm not invested nearly enough in the subject to want to get into an edit war, and it's clear the user isn't interested in discussion of the issue. If someone else can take over from here and guide it to the next stage, I'd be greatly appreciative. Snuppy 03:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the obvious edit war, it would be best to have the article fully protected for a while. This sometimes helps to let a situation cool down and a troll lose interest. - Cyrus XIII 04:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I disagree. I think it would be better to just wait until the user violates WP:3RR which will probably be very soon and then block him for it. Grouse 12:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a tough call.  Maybe listing an RFC on the article's talk would be a good idea - but in the general spirit of WP:THIRD, the individual providing the opinion should be able to just state their view and have that be that...  Smee 12:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the feuders don't mistake you for a troll, I suggest putting it under a separate section. bibliomaniac15 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens next? 

message: I made a  template because I was sick of typing the same boilerplate everywhere. Feel free to be bold and use it/edit it/add it as an optional bit to the main page here. I'm not doing the latter myself because of the controversy over the last template. Grouse 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just use a Third opinion subsection heading.  Good thinking in re that other controversy.  Simplicity seems to work best on this project :-)    — Athænara </font>  ✉  16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3o template 

message: I restored the "informal" notice box. While WP:DR is official policy, the individual components are not necessarily official guidelines or policies. WP:MEDCAB is part of WP:DR, yet entirely informal by design. 3O similarly depends on volunteers and has no defined official process, which to me would make it an informal process by definition. Thoughts? Vassyana 18:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored box 

message: We have a backlog, which is unusual here.  I've tried to make sense of what's there but, except for citing the Civility policy on one, I haven't been able to address any of the remaining reports.   WP:3O contributors' attention would be particularly welcome now.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  20:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belay that alert—Seraphimblade handled most of them.   — Æ. </font>  ✉  06:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary backlog 

message: *DIFF.  It appears from this DIFF, at least from my opinion, that User:Lsi john may be somehow upset that Third opinions from neutral un-involved editors did not go his way, and he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, thus obviously violating WP:POINT.  Thoughts, comments from others, regarding this action  ??  Thank you all for your time and patience with this.  Yours, Smee 05:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really not enough information here for me to see any wrongdoing on the part of this editor.  If you're seriously concerned about this take it to WP:AN/I. i kan reed 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further question then, you see no problem with a single editor adding (7) entries at a time to Wikipedia:Third opinion ??  Smee 07:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have escalated to the point that you are in mediation, you are already past the purview of Third Opinion. Perhaps you should take it to Community Enforceable Mediation, and if that doesn't work, take it to the Arbitration Committee. Snuppy 14:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of Third opinion, [[WP:POINT]] ? 

message: *Should the Third Opinion page be utilized for disputes about editors' actions, or just disputes about articles'  content?  Smee 17:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both, as long as it is a dispute between two editors. --User:Krator (t c) 21:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrightay then.  Smee 21:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on usage of this page 

message: *Is it a conflict of interest (inappropriate) for an editor involved in a dispute to remove a 3O request that was added by the other editor? Lsi john 17:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An interesting question, however unrelated to the first question.  Smee 17:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so, yes. - hmwithtalk 18:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on inappropriate use of this page 

message: I am working on an essay and need to provide suggestions to COI affected editors who have organizational conflicts.  The essay already suggests posting comments to an article talk page (as does WP:COI).  Additionally, I am going to recommend that COI affected editors who want to write about themselves, their company or their clients do so in their own user space, and then get an experienced editor to review their work for neutrality, edit if necessary, and possibly copy the article to main space.  Would this page be an appropriate place for COI affected editors to seek help as a first step, before going to WP:RFC? Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 08:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's good, but I'm hardly an expert on SEO.  The points you made in your post here are excellent.   I'm less clear on the essay itself.  Does "this page" mean the essay page or WP:3O?   — Athænara </font>  ✉  06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: If it fits all the requirements for a third opinion request (see page), yes. --User:Krator (t c) 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinions for COI affected editors 

message: I just finished re-reading Asimov's The Robots of Dawn, and in the second last chapter, the character The Chairman made me think of this Third Opinion process without a moment's doubt. I wonder if any of you has the same associations with that particular chapter of the novel. --User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the book, but I hadn't put 2 & 2 together until I read your comment.  I can see parallels between the two processes, Asimov's & ours.  --Ssbohio 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random Note on giving Third Opinions 

message: Why is this process limited to just two editors? Wouldn't is just be as useful for factions or parties of editors on two sides of one issue? --Aarktica 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an integral part of how this works in comparison to RFC. With two editors in dispute, a single impartial opinion is usually enough to sort the issue. I have dealt with 3O requests in which other parties emerged from the woodwork and weighed in with an opinion that goes against the 3O, which has hints of meatpuppetry about it. Such situations can get messy, drag on long after the mediator has got involved, and undermines the ethos of 3O. I am not prepared to work in that kind of situation, which should be dealt with by a more formal form of mediation or comment from more than one mediating editor. The practical difference between two-editor disputes and two-party disputes may appear small on paper but is very significant in reality. 3O provides a very worthwhile option for fairly straightforward two-editor disputes, and it has a very high success rate in my experience – it should never be weighed down by the added complexity and problems of multiple-editor/two-party disputes. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! --Aarktica 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors or parties? 

message: Hi, I need a third opinion on Diplom. Basically the original article was about comparing the old academic degree (Diplom) with the new European Degrees (Bachelor/Master). Another person wants to add the US Bachelor to the comparison. I don't think this is a benefit to the article. Firstly, It is very hard to compare those degrees (even impossible it differentiates between the university), because the whole educational system is different. There are agreements between the countries how to compare degrees but they are subject to change and the universities have the "last word". That is why I think adding US Bachelor or any other Bachelor from other countries to this comparison gives the reader wrong information and should not be included in wikipedia (I added a link where interested readers can get more official information). Sacrumi 09:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try first posting at request at the main page of Third Opinion, not the talk page, at Wikipedia:Third opinion, and someone should be by the article's talk page to help out.  Good luck!  Yours, Smee 09:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diplom

message: I worked in a Utah Park for the season.  It was an area where they had planted big horn sheep.  We rode around in the park in a Kawasaki mule because it was 55 acres, which went directly up the mountain.  The big horn sheep would stand on a ledge above us and watch us walk or ride around.  
In early morning, they would trail down the mountain to some condominiums which had automatic sprinklers.  They would always find their way back up the mountain.  
There was a young female sheep that would come down the mountain while we were working.  She would come close and watch all activities.  I walked up to her and told her she needed to go back up the mountain before something happened to her.  She turned around and I herded her up the mountain by walking beside her and talking to her.  I leaned down and pulled some grass and she mimicked me.  I told her what beautiful brown eyes she had because she really wasn't beautiful in any other way.  
The next day she came down the mountain again.  This time the wild life worker was there.  I told him that I would walk her up the mountain, which I did.  He said that if I hadn't done that then he would have had to tranquilize her. He said it was strange she would come down because she had a lamb on the mountain. 
It was a once in a life time experience, and she enjoyed it also.
P. Giles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.196.64 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure whether to WP:BJAODN this or.. --User:Krator (t c) 22:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big Horn Sheep 

message: Hi there. I'm looking for some feedback and suggestions on dispute resolution. I've therefore put myself up for Wikipedia:Editor review/TimVickers and was wondering if anybody here could comment, as the review centers on areas contributors to this page will be familiar with. Tim Vickers 21:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. In the future, placing this on the project page rather than on the talk page would be better. --User:Krator (t c) 00:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for editor review

message: The page for The Diplomats ...
Hidden to avoid bias
... as of my current edit, has information pertaining to the groups members and affiliates. It also has a link to Diplomat Records in place of the Discography section for the discography. I did this because Diplomat Records already has information about the albums the group has released so it is unnecessary to post the same information on the article page. User:Shadyaftrmathgunit insists on removing member information and replacing it with a shorter list of members and adding in the discography information and ignores the link to the Discography already placed in the page. Also, I made a template for the group, it can be found beloew all links placed in the template, which would have several links made useless with his continued edits. He seems to be ignoring the fact that his revisions do this to those links. I have reverted such edits but he continues to put the content back. Rather than continue or provoke an editing war, I added a comment on his talk page and am here to ask for a third opinion.
Thank you. --BaRiMzI 22:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please format the above in a short, neutral way, and include it in the appropriate section of the Third Opinion project page, without your signature. (Note: not this page. This is the talk page for discussion on 3O itself) The above is essentially what is to be avoided: one of the parties going to 3O with his arguments, and asking for a confirmation, essentially. This promotes bias, and therefore I have hidden a part of your note above. --User:Krator (t c) 23:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion for The Diplomats page 

message: In an effort to make the 3O page and its instructions a bit easier to read and understand, I have been working out a few changes, mostly fairly minor, in my sandbox. Let me know what you think and feel free to make or suggest any further changes that you would like to see. I'll update the project page when it's ready. Adrian M. H. 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we would like to include some templates that can be used in the article to know that a third opinion has been requested.  I've drawn up some examples in my sandbox.  —  Scottjar  → Talk 18:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be useful, I suppose, but you will see it on your watchlist. It's not a very high-traffic page, so most additions should be spotted before the next removal occurs. I have updated the page now. Adrian M. H. 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Forgot to mention that I have trimmed the shortcuts down to two (chosen as probably the most used) just for neatness and clarity; the other two still exist for anyone who uses them. Adrian M. H. 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, having viewed the templates, I have just twigged what you were talk about. Bit tired! The wording needs a tweak, but these will make a useful addition to the project. When they're ready, upload them to the relevant templates page (talk page templates or disputes, I suppose) and we can "tl" them to the project page.  Adrian M. H. 18:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah, I was just responding to see if maybe you misunderstood what I meant when you gave me an edit conflict ;)  Ok, I'll move them to a template and post them back here. —  Scottjar  → Talk 18:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think a template on the article is appropriate, if the dispute is so major as to require a template then  or something more specific should be added instead. Even for a banner on the talk page, I don't think it's such a good idea. The whole point of 3O is that it's informal; having template banners to announce the request seems counter to that informality. Anomie 19:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does make sense. I wonder if there are enough specific templates, however, for all the matters that 3O covers, if templates were to be placed on some of the pages.  Recently there was a discussion over the inclusion of a gallery of images; things like this might not have a template.  But if it would ruin the informality of the process, then maybe it shouldn't be used. —  Scottjar  → Talk 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is "Is this something important enough to the casual reader that it should be plastered into the article text?". NPOV, reliability, and such are definitely that important. Cleanup and references are iffy. Just a general "some people disagree about something here" IMO isn't that important. Anomie 19:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Make it a talk page template for inclusion only in the relevant section. Do not make it mandatory to use, but request its use when providing a third opinion. Useful because it helps those editors who are looking over past discussions to see that a third opinion has been requested (and provided). Do not underestimate the number of these editors. A parameters could be "provided=Krator", which would add the italic text in: "A third opinion has been requested and provided by Krator on this article". Wording is an example, not what I intend/request it to be. --User:Krator (t c) 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For some reason, this talk page is not appearing on my watchlist even though it is being watched. Anyway, Anomie makes a good point; I had not realised that you had intended these to be article templates as opposed to talk page templates, otherwise I would have suggested that modification. I like Krator's suggestion; that would tie in well with using this template in the relevant section, which I think would be better (it will get archived eventually) than having it at the top. I have swapped the Active Disagreements section back to where I had placed it in my move, with the rationale that I think it should be right below the usage instructions, not shoved at the bottom below the instructions for us lot. Thoughts? Adrian M. H. 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anomie's edit link is a nice idea. Looks OK, too. Adrian M. H. 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I like the redesign, although I think there should be something in the "Active disagreements" section so it doesn't get lost when there are no active disagreements. How does this look to you? (edit conflicted: Thanks!) I still don't really see the need for a banner about third opinions, even on the talk page section; if someone is looking for discussion about the issue, the banner isn't likely to help them find it. Anomie 00:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that edit link is a very good addition, and I like the way in which you added the instructions via template to the edit window. I didn't know that this was possible. I'm open minded about the talk page templates, so I really don't mind either way. They have pros and cons. Adrian M. H. 10:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The addition of __NOEDITSECTION__ made sound sense, I thought. Adrian M. H. 12:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NOEDITSECTION makes things more difficult in general. People editing the instructions, and not the disagreements, will be forced to edit the whole page. Those who do not read instructions at all will be forced to edit the whole page or (more likely) do not ask for a third opinion. Furthermore, being able to edit sections is a Wikipedia standard, and moving away from it will cause confusion. --User:Krator (t c) 12:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I originally transcluded the instructions because I added the "Add your dispute" link that includes the instructions as the editintro, and by transcluding them into the main page they would only have to be edited once. But others have decided that the ones in the editintro should be more concise, and I don't have any opposition to that. Anomie 14:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was Krator that made that change, and I think he was right. It keeps the reminder short so that it takes up less screen space without compromising the main instruction set. The instructions probably won't need to be edited very much. Adrian M. H. 15:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to 3O layout and wording 

message: Restoring Flugpo Article
I am trying to create an article on a website which has been deleted under the context of advertisment and lack of nobility. After further researching Wikipedia's policies, my userpage contains the latest version of the article and I was interested in recieving further information how I can look into restoring the article. If you could either assist me in this or point me in the right direction, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks.Saracity123 22:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a 3O issue and even if it was, this is the project's talk page. You could make a request at EAR. Adrian M. H. 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Saracity123 contribs indicate that it is a conflict of interest single purpose account with the usual issues which are frequently posted for attention on WP:COI/N.  — Athaenara  ✉  00:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for a third party editor

message: I've my interpretation is correct, two requests were recently deleted when the current request was posted.  I have copied those two requests from the history and will paste them in now.
My apologies if I've misinterpreted this.  I though it possible that someone had selected them for review, but the summaries did not suggest that.
Burkander 01:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you have not provided specifics, I can only make a general observation that we remove posts that do not adhere to the guidelines of 3O. I had to remove a lengthy non-neutral request just now. Adrian M. H. 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: To add to Adrian's comment, no deleted request cannot be reposted. In fact, we (i.e. the regulars over here) very much like that, because it would be a shame to see the dispute unsolved. User:Krator (t c) 12:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted Requests

message: Just a question: if a user is leaving third opinions that are useless and/or do not contribute anything to the conversation, is there anything that can be done? I ask this because 64.26.98.90 has now left two opinions on pages, both of which are fairly worthless. The first, on here, was commented on by another user as to how it did not help. The other, on here, was entirely off-topic as to what was written on the 3O page. Anyone else have thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 01:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we're fortunate that what you described has not been a ongoing problem.  I agree that it deserves some attention.  (Sorry I didn't see this until today).  — Athaenara  ✉  23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact that it happened points up the fact that following the progress of third opinions which we haven't given, ourselves, is also very helpful to the project.  — Athaenara  ✉  23:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless comments? 

message: There is a discussion brewing about an apparent slowdown in at least some area of dispute resolution. (This discussion may be found here.) I thought that the regular contributors to this area might be interested in joining the discussion. Cheers! Vassyana 16:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, it sure has been quiet around here. Kind of weird.. is it just that people aren't having issues, or that they're not looking for help as much? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution slowdown 

message: After such great work recently from Amatulic, Axlq, HelloAnnyong, SilkTork, and others, I'm beginning to think a Third Opinion Barnstar is called for. — Athaenara  ✉  03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Just glad to lend a hand around here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 03:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a third of a barnstar? bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or three little stars?  — Athaenara  ✉  08:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion barnstar?

message: Why are third opinion cases confined to situations involving only two people? What should I do if the clear results of an Rfc are being ignored by a single editor? Mrshaba (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first is the nature of the project.  The second sounds like disruptive editing.  Depending on the specific problem, posting on WQA or ANI may help, or on COIN for an editor conflict of interest, or on BLPN for a biography of a living person.  — Athaenara  ✉  14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this may have been a misunderstanding about what 3rd opinion means. When two people can't agree, you go out to get a 3rd opinion, an opinion from someone other than the two involved. I think that what Mrshaba thought was a 3rd opinion was if you got two other opinions but you didn't like them, so you sought out a 3rd opinion. The issue at hand was succinctly summarized at , but Mrshaba didn't like the opinion, so he sought a 2nd and a 3rd opinion. I have objectively printed out the article and showed it to random people and most liked the image, and thought that it was a good image for the article. 199.125.109.43 (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: Hi I would like to refer to this page: Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks#Assumtions are unethical and a disgrace to acedemics which use wikipedia
After reading the discussion I had here about the validity of the articles statements I was shown the door. I would like a thrid opinion on this, am I out of place to expect academic accuracy in this regard? Trek mambo (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong. Sorry. User:Krator (t c) 01:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: “There has been no court case to prove the guilt of Al Qaeda so please do not add this to the wikipedia page.”  I’m afraid what you’re asking for is not academic accuracy, but rather legal accuracy. Inasmuch as bin Laden is on record claiming responsibility on behalf of al Qaida – which no other leader of al Qaida has denied, and for which no other entity has contested the claim – the issue is rather moot.  If we could claim nothing as “true” – or as “accurate” (see WP:V) – in history, then we cannot claim to know much, even if evidentiary standards were uniform globally and across time.  Hitler could not be guilty for the deaths of millions of Jews, since he died before he could be brought to justice, so the issue became legally moot.  Carried out to the point of ad absurdum, we could not say “2 + 2 = 4” without a legal writ.  Indeed, under your proposed standard, most works of history by academic historians would have to be recalled.  Askari Mark (Talk) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Active Disagreement

message: Hi,
I've been editting the Quake II page for a while now, and after a recent edit, user:Xihr came along and reverted to one of my previous edits. He gave no explanation, until I asked for one on his talk page. However, as I noted on his talk page, the things he's criticized really don't apply to contents of the last edit I made before the reverting started. He doesn't seem wiling to discuss this so I thought I'd ask for a third opinion here, if anyone can help. Maybe I'm wrong in some of the stuff I've editted, I'm not saying I'm certain I'm right. But it would be nice for someone to take the time to explain why, considering the points I've made. Thanks. Ben 2082 (talk) 09:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The other user provided an explanation on User talk:Xihr#Quake II Revert.  — Athaenara  ✉  12:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Postscript: Somehow I doubt that my observation was helpful — perhaps someone else will have a more useful response.  — Athaenara  ✉  12:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They provided an explanation but like I said, I don't really think it's an adequate one. There were clear points I laid out in response to the revert, explaining why I think it's unjustified, but none of these were even considered. Anyway thanks for the help with this. Ben 2082 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

text: By looking at your edit history, Ben, I can see that you are relatively new to Wikipedia. In future, when something like this happens, post your concerns on the article's talk page instead of going straight to the other editor's talk page. That way, your concerns are brought more into the open (and in the end, more open than they would be here at Third Opinion) and then more people who are involved with the article can give their input. If that doesn't get you anywhere, try get relevant WikiProjects involved, in this case WikiProject Video games. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I'll do that. Ben 2082 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quake II reverts 

message: I haven't been offering many third opinions in the past month or two, but I have been following the progress of the disputes which have been listed and observing the effects of Third opinions given by other project members.  I think we're the best little project in Texas, I mean, on Wikipedia.  — Athaenara  ✉  04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Go team 3O! Woo! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best little project 

message: (undent) Man, writing templates is much harder than I thought. I can pump out all the PHP code you'd ever want, but these templates.. Anyway, here's what I came up with: . The three parameters are optional. Here's what it looks like:
----
:==Your addition to WP:3O==
:Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks.
----
I couldn't figure out how to add signatures to templates, and this needs to totally be checked over by someone who knows what they're doing. But it's just a first attempt. Can you think of anything else that should be added? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing templates

message: I know it's a complex situation (even I get get derailed at times dealing with the mess) for a 3rd opinion to get a handle on, but I just created a new section called Problems with the current introduction and I deconstructed the current intro to the article section by section to list what I consider their faults. I heartily recommend that the likely ensuing "discussion" be observed to better gauge the nature of what happens when one tries to get anything fixed, never mind actually improved regarding the article. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New [[Killian Documents]] Section -- Demonstration 

message: I'm wondering what we should do with this page. It's clearly a lengthy edit war, and I don't know that a third opinion is going to help. There's also at least four editors that have posted on there in the past few days, and I'm wondering if that technically makes it ineligible for 3O. At the very least, I know my hands are full enough that I don't really have time to read through and fully understand the discussion there. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the purpose of that new section I created was to demonstrate what happens when an attempt is made to actually improve the article, starting with a single short paragraph with a few, shall we say, "issues". All I'm asking is that some neutral 3rd parties observe the sequence. As far as the "four editors" go, that was mostly in regards to a couple of vandalistic entries by an IP and one very minor word change. I know getting a third opinion in this situation is really just a first step, and it's likely more an issue for ArbCom, but I do want to follow recommended procedures, and one recommendation was to try WP:30 first. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  With regard to Killian Documents