This user is a member of the Wikimedia volunteer response team.
This user is an Online Ambassador on the English Wikipedia
This user is online, or forgot to change their status before finishing a wikisession.

User talk:Steven Crossin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Steven Zhang)
Jump to: navigation, search
User Page User Talk Contribs E-mail Subpages Adoption Awards

Steve's Status:
Online (verify)
3:16 pm, 27 September 2016 AEST
Talk Archives
Stuff to do

Title Status Created Last volunteer edit
Talk:ReCore 7Closed Drmies (t) 12 days, 14 hours Robert McClenon (t) 4 days, 2 hours Arcmind (t) 6 days, 9 hours
Talk:Bain family_murders#Joe_Karam 8Failed Histrange (t) 8 days, 20 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours
User talk:Fixuture#Kiwix is open source 1New Fixuture (t) 5 days, 8 hours Robert McClenon (t) 3 days, 15 hours Nick (t) 2 days, 21 hours
Talk:Sciences Po#Full_protection 1New Launebee (t) 2 days, 13 hours Robert McClenon (t) 2 days, 9 hours Launebee (t) 2 days, 9 hours
Talk:Finding Prince Charming#Stop using ",000" for ratings 1New (t) 3 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours Robert McClenon (t) 1 hours

Last updated by DRN clerk bot (talk) at 04:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Please Check Your Mail[edit]

Hi Steven, I have written you regarding an edit to a page referring to my person where I would like clarification. Kindly advise. Golfeditor1 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Steven[edit]

I am not experienced in dispute resolution and I just had an unpleasant editing war with a user who blanked a section that I wrote with quite a lot of care for the article In the Beginning There Was Light. I know that I did not react correctly as I made a 3RR mistake. I did not stay as cool as I should have. So I want to get a resolution - but one that improves the article - not just makes it shorter.

His argument was that the background section is not necessary at all - so he blanked it completely. I used a lot of effort to not only include statements of the director but also links to renowned journals on the topic. And I think the background context is essential especially for this documentary as it´s quite controversial. Anyways - in my opinion he is welcome to improve the article by submitting more information but not just blindly blanking. That was the reason why I reverted. What would you suggest in this case ? How should I proceed when he continues blanking huge parts of the content ? Robin Lakritz (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kk87 again[edit]

Just FYI, since they removed it without comment and since their actual contribution at Jimbo's talk was so weirdly off-course, please note this. I have not been following Kk87 around, saw the thing only by chance and didn't want to appear as if I was telling tales when all I was attempting to do was give them a tip. Looks like my intentions were not appreciated, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, I would really appreciate it if you would at least give a ping or something when you comment about me anywhere. As for Jimbo's talkpage I disagree, most of the discussions involve proposals on improvement to Wikipedia or IPs who want their blocks pardoned. You were the one who first went to ANI about me, and now you want to give me tips? In short im sorry but I don't trust you, as much as I want to you haven't given me any indication that I should start. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


His name is Dentren, not Dentine. --Keysanger (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NGC 4451, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Virgo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

100 wikidays[edit]

Welcome on board ! Face-smile.svg Trace (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bot framework[edit]

I am interested in creating or copying a bot framework that would delete talk pages to previously deleted pages on I looked around the bot frameworks that are already listed, and so far, I have found nothing helpful. I came across your userpage on the bot framework list, I was wondering if you knew how to create the framework for this one task, or if you know of an existing bot framework that covers this.

SoPretentious (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Life extension edit[edit]

Hi Steve,

Thank you for agreeing to clarify some things for me. Let me quote the content of the edit about which I want to talk:

Life extension is a focus of a 2016 United States presidential candidate's campaign and political party.

You said this about it:

In my opinion, the proposed texts should not be added to any of the articles, mainly per WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a PR/advocacy platform.

This suggests that you think that the edit violates the soapbox policy because it is advocacy or public relations. Is this what you meant?

I cannot see how the edit is advocacy. It does not recommend or show support for a cause or policy. If you indeed meant that the edit is advocacy, will you tell me why it is advocacy?

Further, I do not understand why you consider it public relations. As you know, I am in no way affiliated with the political party in question, and it goes without saying that my edit was not intended to put a favourable light on the party. If you do consider the edit to be public relations, would you explain your reasoning?


--Haptic-feedback (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

SteveBot seems to be inactive[edit]

Hi. I noticed that your bot, SteveBot, seems to be inactive. As I understand you only needed the bot in order to deliver a dispute resolution survey. Is that right? Does this mean you won't be needing the bot flag anymore, right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, I actually have the bot for some other tasks as well as the one-time dispute resolution survey. While I haven't used it for a while, I would like it to keep the bot flag if that's possible for the other tasks it runs. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 10:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, sure. I do not plan any actions in the near future. Just checking that the bot owners are still active on Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A Few Minor Things at DRN[edit]

There are three cases at the dispute resolution noticeboard that haven't been opened. One has been sitting for six days, and I have manually set it to Needs Attention. The other two don't really seem to be content disputes in the usual sense. In one of them, the issue is whether to include material that isn't about a book so much as about the topic area of the book, which is off topic. In the other one, the issue appears to be whether to use an American style date or a European style date in an article about American soccer. I think that the first case needs a moderator, and the other two cases need to be reviewed to see whether they need closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, there is a discussion at the Teahouse by an editor who is dissatisfied with the disposition of a recent DRN case. I replied that he can use RFC. You might want to take a quick look and see if you have anything to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Jashodaben Narendrabhai Modi[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Steven Crossin, you were the one to help clear the image for this DYK nomination through OTRS. I was wondering whether you could do the same for the Template:Did you know nominations/Notoscyphus balticus nomination, which has been on hold for a month waiting for File:Notoscyphus balticus Combined 36 sections B.jpg to clear. Any help you can give would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if you need any further information. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Only get error when filing dispute[edit]

I sent you and email yesterday, but then saw that posting here is the preferred method, so sorry if I'm overloading you. After filling everything on the DNR page, every time I hit SAVE on the DRN page, it gives me "Error, API returned error code "bad token": invalid token." I think I've done everything right. Is this the right way to put in the link - Plot assumes way too much. ? Capuchinpilates (talk) 16:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I just tried a different browser, Chrome, and it worked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capuchinpilates (talkcontribs) 00:56, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

IE hates everyone? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban[edit]

Could you review my topic ban as it has been over a month now? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been any trouble from what I've seen as a result of the restriction. Knowledgekid87, can you tell me what you will do differently if your topic ban is relaxed (and what you've done recently since the topic ban?) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
If I tell you here what I will do differently editors will use it as a way to pounce on my every move and umbrella it under "Pot stirring", I would rather email you. As for what I have done differently, I have stuck to improving anime and manga related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a reply, or should I go through another admin? It seems you are busy in real life and don't want to make it seem like I am bothering you. At the very least it would be nice if I could take part in AfDs regarding anime/manga related articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, we must be on the same wavelength. You actually edit conflicted me. I'm happy to relax it to allow you to participate in XFD. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How many more months do you need? I haven't been on any "Drama" threads. It is hard though with my current TB as small pages like WP:TAN would fall under the scope. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason you feel you aren't able to edit where you need to with the topic ban as it currently is? Steven Crossin 03:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said there are small pages still, ones like WP:TAN, WP:RfA things that interest me. It has been almost 2 months already. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Could I get a response to my questions? I know you have been busy in real life and respect that but would like to appeal my topic ban in lieu of how much time has passed. Having this hang over me like a ball and chain is bothersome. Is there another admin that could act as an arbitrator? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, Knowledgekid87. You have from what I can see kept your nose clean, so I'm happy to lift the ban in full and do so with immediate effect. I will remove the notice of the topic ban from your talk page and from the respective page on editing restrictions, but please of course note that if issues flare up again it may need to be reimposed. Steven Crossin 12:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Its okay, thank you for your reply. I will look toward doing more editing on articles as I have been. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Could use some help[edit]

I was not sure the dispute resolution noticeboard would be a good fit for this issue. The article under Objections to evolution, Violation of the second law of thermodynamics, is based on a statement limiting the law. Inexplicably, the law’s correct application is also stated in the article itself resulting in an obvious contradiction.

Since Earth receives energy from the Sun, it is an open system. The second law of thermodynamics applies only to isolated systems.

“Another objection is that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.[165] Though the law applies to all systems...”

“Applies to all systems” is correct and contradicts “applies only to isolated systems.” The problem was pointed out in Talk but my posting was deleted. In fairness that might have been because of a snarky reply to a less than brilliant question. A request for comment in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, "Is the second law of thermodynamics applicable only to isolated systems?" was posted to allow someone with a physical science background to resolve the matter. It is a matter of logic and thermodynamics 101. The appeal disappeared and never made it to the RfC list. Other problems with the article have been identified but there is no point in pursuing them if the contradiction is not acknowledged. Is there a way to get my RfC question up for consideration?LEBOLTZMANN2 (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

help us resolve disputes
Thank you, Steve, for creating the dispute resolution noticeboard and your help there, for warning vandals and knowing a no-win situation, for an understanding for erring, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (9 May 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 965th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 965 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Request.js[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. APerson (talk!) 12:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Your input is required at WP:ARCA, concerning my restriction. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Userpage[edit]

I have fixed the invalid links on your user page's /nav subpage here for you. --JustBerry (talk) 11:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have also fixed the invalid links on your /talknav subpage here for you. For the /talknav, I changed what I was more sure about, didn't mess with the image links, etc. You may want to look to resolve the username change related issues on your user page and talk page more than the other subpages, since people spend more time there. --JustBerry (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Note: If you don't like my edits, just revert the diffs above. --JustBerry (talk) 11:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


I think the topic ban has expired for Knowledgekid87 but, really, they do not seem to have learned a thing. Eg: see the link in this diff. - Sitush (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I was pinged to ANI [1] you are the one getting into something this time that has nothing to do with you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time KK87's actions have been queried in the very short time since the lifting of his topic ban. He was politely asked about his involvement in drama immediately after his topic ban but he summarily deleted the discussion rather than archive it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You were wrong though, Liz went to the crats and discussed it [2]. This is after I had been accused of edit warring after one undo. [3][4][5]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
That is a matter of opinion. I was not wrong in stating you were immediately injecting yourself into drama by your comments (not your vote) in the RfA and associated editors talk pages. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as Montana goes, I was addressing the candidate involved, it is what people do in an RfA. I had even requested that I take part in the process [6]. Im sorry you didn't agree with what I had to say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
The point of that other topic was I was accused of edit warring, and you didn't even offer up an apology after the fact about anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Where did I accuse you of edit warring? I made no such accusation so I don't see why you expect me to apologise. Re: your accusation that I "was wrong" - if other people feel the need to insist on being included on lists to which they are not eligible, well I feel sorry for them. My point was that you were injecting yourself into areas of drama within an hour of your topic ban being lifted. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
You can apologize on another editor's behalf you saw the post im sure, as for drama please show some diffs. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Try here and you removed your post here - need I go on? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
After yet another (edit conflict) Try here and you removed your post here - need I go on? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC) No, actually, I'm out of this "discussion". As far as I am concerned we are supposed to be here to build an encyclopedia and add content; I get that certain individuals want a social network and to assert their ideals of "civility" etc and, to be perfectly frank, I want no involvement in the petty politics and point scoring. I stand by my content contributions (and the much appreciated help I have had with them) - as to the rest of the "social network" I really don't want to know and will not comment any further here. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Those weren't an "hour" after, one was a thing I let drop as I had a change of opinion, while the other post I removed to yank myself out of trying to help out RO. Montana, and an admin later thanked me for doing that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
In a way, it helped in the end as Montana and RO got to talk one to one without any outside input, even if it didn't work out in the end. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) KK87, you were pinged after initially injecting yourself in the thread. There wasn't really any need for you to be there in the first place and what you said added nothing to that which had already been said by people with more experience and a better understanding of time and place. You then posted in reply to the ping and made a hash of it and had to backpedal, which is nothing new for you but makes for an unnecessarily fractious environment. A part of the problem that led to your topic ban was exactly the type of behaviour demonstrated in that thread and that you seem to be rushing back into that style is somewhat concerning, as is your repeated removals of comments posted on your talk page. Yes, it is your talk page but, really, you're just demonstrating an ongoing unwillingness to accept valid criticism. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Sitush I was also pinged when Kosh first posted the thread [7]. Please look at all the diffs, Im done posting at ANI/AN if I am not involved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay arbitration amendment request archived[edit]

The GoodDay arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, Jim Carter 11:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


will you adopt me nms642 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request made[edit]

I've made a clarification request here. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Facepalm[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Facepalm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TL22 (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


GREAT to hear from you Steve! How the heck are ya doing? I hope all is well, and I hope you're having a marvelous holiday season. Best always buddy. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy new year[edit]

Merry Christmas and happy new year. (:


GoodDay ARCA request archived[edit]

A recent clarification request mentioning yourself as a party has been declined and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Mdann52 (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Help decide the future of Wikimania[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 21:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Towards a New Wikimania results[edit]

Wikimania logo with text.svg

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

As Our Founder, I've added you to the roll call list as exempt. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that TransporterMan, things have still been pretty flat out in my life but there will be a day that I'm back a lot more and helping out at DRN again, even if I feel that its probably time I'm put out to pasture since I've been away so long :) Steven Crossin 02:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay's ARCA request[edit]

Howdy Steven. I've made an amendment request here. GoodDay (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The amendment request has passed by motion, and is archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GoodDay#Amendment request: GoodDay (August 2016). For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

DRN question[edit]

I've filed a case and I want to know how I'll find out if my case has been "opened"?--HamedH94 (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

If a DRN volunteer chooses to accept the case, they'll open it by making statements or asking questions at the DRN page. Remember that DRN doesn't make judgments, only assists in discussion by moderating it. There's been objection there that other parties have taken part in the talk page discussion who were not listed as parties. Please remember that consensuses reached at DRN are not binding on everyone in the dispute unless all parties involved in the dispute take part in the discussion at DRN and reach consensus through moderated discussion there, so you may want to give serious consideration to adding those additional parties, making opening statement sections for them, and giving them notice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)
can i add users by just editing the case and adding the names to the "Users involved" section and opening a "Summary of dispute" section for every one of them? or is there a special template or sth for that action? --HamedH94 (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yea, that will be fine in this situation, if you make a mistake, one of us can fix it up for you. Steven Crossin 04:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)