This is not an encyclopedia article. It is the main page of user DiscipleOfKnowledge. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DiscipleOfKnowledge.
Welcome to my user page. Please excuse the mess and vomit for now; I will be improving the layout of my userpage one day when I have time, maybe in a few years.
I am a South African and live just outside of Cape Town.
My focus is principally on South African articles, a very under-represented part of Wikipedia. Although my focus is occasionally diverted to video-game related articles, most of my time is spent on tasks related to WikiProject South Africa.
Feel at liberty to drop a line on my discussion page or edit the "to do" list below if you have any particular requests.
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
0 page(s) currently transcluding the {{Admin help}} template. Note: Frequently requests is this category don't necessarily require help from administrators, but simply an experienced editor.
For links directly to each current RFC see the navigational template below. For a listing with a brief introduction to each ongoing debate, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/All.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 summaryhow 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: ~~~~.
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}}.
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):
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.")
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>
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
Modified by GorillaWarfare on 2021-01-29: "Also restore previous indef move-protection, which I believe was accidentally time-limited when the full page protection was applied"
Protected by Nosebagbear on 2020-11-19: "Persistent disruptive editing, BLP issues, promotionalism etc etc. Indeffing due to extremely long protection record"
Protected by Mifter on 2012-12-27: "Persistent vandalism and BLP violations - every time the protection expires, the vandalism/BLP vios resume, so lets see how indef works."
From Floyd Mayweather, Jr.: Modified by Courcelles on 2010-08-20: "Disruptive users blocked. Semi-protection will remain due to sockpuppetry issues (This is the button I meant to press last time)"
Protected by Anachronist on 2021-01-24: "Persistent disruptive editing: previous 1-year semi-protection ineffective after expiration; escalated to indef"
Protected by El C on 2024-04-30: "Persistent vandalism: protected ~15 times prior, latest one for 3 years, so setting the protection not to expire this time"
Protected by MelanieN on 2021-01-23: "Replacing indefinite PC protection with indefinite semiprotection. Article is too heavily edited, and receives too much vandalism, for PC to be effective."
Extended-confirmed protected, expires 2025-08-27 at 20:53:35 UTC (log)
Modified by Nyttend on 2024-11-05: "Persistent vandalism: Major vandalism by an autoconfirmed user. May fall under WP:AMPOL too, but this isn't arbitration enforcement; it may be removed by any other administrator"
Protected by Mifter on 2017-03-25: "Considering the main page was unprotected by a compromised sysop semi recently, perhaps transcluding it to a cascade protected page will provide a small increase in protection"
Note to editors: Please search for existing articles on any request. If an article exists, but not at the requested title, please create a redirect. Be sure requests meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Fulfilled requests need to be removed manually.
209.249.71.55(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) I reverted an unconstructive but fairly benign edit from this school IP. Turns out almost all contribs have been reverted, and the two recent ones that weren't are also questionable. This probably needs a short block, hopefully they'll create an account so we can actually talk to them. Toadspike[Talk] 19:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Insufficient recent activity to warrant a block. Please sufficiently warn the user if they continue disruption and re-report to AIV if they continue past the warnings. Fathoms Below(talk) 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings. @Zefr: Do not warn a user and then immediately report them. You warned them 4 and a half hours after their only vandalism edit, then immediately came here after warning. It seems fairly clear this doesn't need immediate attention. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
20:5020:50, 6 November 2024Battle of Karh (1516) (hist | edit) [3,334 bytes]Hasanreels(talk | contribs)(←Created page with ''''Battle of Karh''' - Ottoman soldiers commanded by Circassian Husayn Beg, ambushed by Safavid forces resulted in the destruction of almost all Ottoman soldiers. {{Infobox military conflict | conflict = Battle of Karh (1516) | width = | partof = Ottoman-Persian wars | image = | image_size = | alt = | caption = | date = April,1516 | place = Diyarbakır, Turkey | coordinates = <!--Use the {{coord}...')
20:4320:43, 6 November 2024Metropol' (hist | edit) [8,009 bytes]Bchtmchd(talk | contribs)(←Created page with 'The '''Metropol' Almanac''' is a collection of uncensored texts by famous writers, self published in Samizdat in Moscow in December 1978.<ref>{{Cite web |title=J. Willard Marriott Library Blog {{!}} Banned! — Metropol: Literary Almanac |url=https://blog.lib.utah.edu/banned-the-metropol-affair/ |access-date=2024-11-06 |language=en-US}}</ref> The collection was organized by Vasily Aksyonov, and counted with contributions from a number of Soviet writ...')Tag: Visual edit
Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.
Committed identity: 0ee2234199e5fa50df1aaba514e9867888f027e25dd6f756010e5629cc7d7a20268a5b544015aa5dad2aefc4cd75f93a00cf12f1d186a6b8745892a0efd4d2b8 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.
.svg){kind=spacer}
.jpg){kind=small}
In progress but dramatically improved layout, and additional content.
Done
Not done
In progress
