User talk:TransporterMan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk
  • If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.

This will ensure that conversations remain together!


Hi TransporterMan. Per your recommendation at DR, I have opened a new discussion here on the Hargeisa plane monument. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre order bonuses in list of Castlevania media[edit]

I have doubt that pre-order bonuses like Dracula X: Nocturne in the Moonlight and Akumajō Dracula: Yami no Juin – Fukushū no Jokyoku deserve to be in the List of Castlevania media since they were only available through pre-order. I don't know whether pre-order bonuses should be included in list of media based on a franchise. List of Final Fantasy media does not contain any pre-order bonuses. What is your opinion? KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm very much out of my element here: Though I've had computers for as far back as personal computers have been available, I've never been a gamer and I've not had much involvement with game-related articles here at Wikipedia which has moved past application of basic Wikipedia principles. That, therefore, is how I have to answer your question:
  • First, remember that every article stands alone unless there is a policy or guideline requiring it to be or not be fashioned in a particular way. I am unaware of any rule affecting this question — though again let me say that I don't edit in this area, so I can't say for sure (though I would think it very unlikely that there is) — so on that level, it would be perfectly acceptable for pre-order bonuses (POB's) to be included in Final Fantasy and not in Castlevania.
  • Second, the most basic principle on what goes into an article and what does not is verifiability. Though I've not dug into them deeply, the sources cited would appear to me to at least on first blush support the existence of these POB's, so that takes care of verifiability. (Whether the sources justify the
  • Third, those entries have been on the list for several months without being challenged. That creates consensus-by-default for them being there. To remove them will take either (a) a demonstration that they somehow violate a Wikipedia rule or (b) the formation of a new consensus for their removal. That consensus could come as simply as removing them and no one objecting, of course, but if anyone does object then a fully-discussed consensus or a consensus-by-concession (i.e. the objecting parties give up) will have to be formed before they can be removed.
  • Finally, what I think you really wanted: "Should" they be included. The argument in favor of their inclusion is that they are, in fact, "Castlevania media" and the lede of the list does not specifically exclude POB's or limit the list to only media which were available for general purchase. In light of that argument, about the only argument that I can think of for their exclusion would be that they were so insignificant that to include them gives them undue weight. Frankly, however, I don't think that argument is sufficient in light of the breadth of the article topic.
So, I think that they ought to remain in the list, but that's just my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC) PS: Remember that the high road is always to first propose the change on the article talk page. Let it sit for a week or so and then if no one objects, change away. TM — 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually I think the real reason no one has objected to the presence of POBs is because just like me other users don't know whether POBs should be on the list or not. I am not saying that is necessarily the cause but it could be. Actually I think no one has objected to them because no one has noticed them or if they have they might be confused whether they should be there or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
In general, we don't judge editors' actions by their motivations, but only by their actions. Regardless of the reason for no objection, there weren't any objections. Unless there was a policy or guideline which made their inclusion improper (e.g. lack of a source or a reliable source, original research, copyvio, etc.), then we presume that they were inserted in good faith and that the Wikipedia community thought that they were acceptable when no one made a timely objection. It's kind of like the presumption in law that everyone knows all the law. If you let people get away with stuff if they claim that they didn't know the law or what was in that contract that they signed, then the whole legal system falls apart because you can't be sure that any law or any contract will be enforceable. We have to have both stability and flexibility here at Wikipedia and consensus-by-concession and consensus-by-silence provide part of that balance. And they cut both ways: maybe you're right that in reality no one reverted or objected because they weren't sure whether or not they ought to be there. If you're right, and that's all it is, if you take them out and no one objects and a reasonable amount of time passes, then we'll have consensus that they should not be there (to be sure of that, you would really need to propose both your removal and your reasons for the removal on the talk page first and give some time for responses; otherwise, the fact that you removed them because you didn't think that they ought to be there might later be forgotten). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I had already posted about this matter on the talk page of the list some days ago. It's been a week and still no one has even commented at all. I think I was right all along that no one had noticed the POBs. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar[edit]

Hi TransporterMan.

Thank you for your input regarding my edits on the Irene Caesar entry. Your concerns about defamation are serious, and they deserve to be treated as such. I won't pretend to be versed in all of Wikipedia's policies. You strike me as more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so let me solicit your input: what's an appropriate way to create an accurate entry -- warts and all -- about Ms. Caesar within the confines of Wikipedia policy? My intent was not to defame either Ms. Caesar or the organizations and individuals that she accuses of misdeeds. I cited statements she herself made in her blog, so I think (but again, I speak as someone of limited experience as a Wikipedian) she can't reasonably accuse us of defaming her. As far as the other parties she mentions, it seems to me that she's more at risk of defaming them than we are. Anyway, my main intent was to illustrate (using her own published statements as proof) her pattern of making unsubstantiated claims. In this context, can you suggest language that would be more appropriate for the entry? For example, might I say "Ms. Caesar has a pattern of making unsubstantiated claims..."?

On a broader basis, her own words suggest that she is a proponent of conspiracy theories and not simply an "apolitical" artist without an agenda. As Wikipedians we shouldn't use prosecutorial or partisan language, but I do think that as a notable figure meriting a Wikipedia page, she should be portrayed "encyclopediacally", the good the bad and the ugly so to speak. One of the difficulties is that her more-controversial beliefs have not been well documented in third party reliable sources; the main evidence stems from her own words in her blog and in interviews with sources that might not be considered reliable in Wikipedia. If you can help me navigate this catch-22, I'd be most grateful.

Thank you for your help with this matter.Scaleshombre (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Please don't take offense. I decided to follow Wikipedia's admonition to "Be Bold" and updated the section on Caesar's philosophy by citing some of her writing. I took care to avoid any references to specific third parties that could be potentially defamatory. I'm not going to try to conceal the fact that Caesar's views have got me "hot under the collar." I might not be the most dispassionate person in the world to edit her page, but in lieu of anyone else stepping forward to do so, I feel compelled to take on the task. I've tried my best to keep my emotions out of my edits to her page, and I believe I've worded it in such a way to honor Wiki policy on BLP. If I've fallen short of this goal, I will respect your decision to make more changes. But I do feel strongly that any individual who merits a Wikipedia page needs to be represented accurately, particularly if he or she has strong views that fall outside the mainstream.Scaleshombre (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your new additions are a clear improvement over the ones I reverted and avoid the biggest problems I was concerned about (especially prohibited interpretation of primary and self-published sources). I'm not at all sure that they will completely meet BLP muster, especially BLPSELFPUB, but they're close enough to it that I'm out of my area of expertise. If the other editor reverts you, ask for the edits to be reviewed over at BLP noticeboard rather than just reverting back. Also consider following the advice I give here on dealing with an editor who will not engage in discussion. However, let me give you some general principles (though I'll be the first to admit that some of these are often overlooked once we get into detailed squabbles over edits).
  • First, remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs.
  • Second, that if you are impassioned about a subject it may indicate that you have third-party relationships which constitute a conflict of interest; Wikipedia strongly recommends (but does not require) that you avoid editing articles about which you have a COI.
  • Third, just because something is Indisputably True and Vitally Important does not mean that it can be included in Wikipedia. The standard is that everything in WP must to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Articles should be primarily supported by such sources. Primary sources can, within very strong limits, be used for some details but articles cannot be based primarily upon primary sources. Self-published sources generally cannot be used except for some very limited purposes, one of which is to fill in non-controversial personal matters about living persons from self-published sources written by that person.
Why, you ask, can things which are Indisputably True and Vitally Important not be included without this bureaucratic barrier? Because unlike a commercial, paper encyclopedia we do not have a paid professional board of editors who judge what is true and not true and what should and should not be included. Instead, we only include things which other sources, those which have something significant at risk if they don't do it right and have a reputation for responsibly dealing with that risk, have determined are true and important.
  • Fourth, it's very important to remember that we merely report what sources say. We don't synthesize or interpret it. A good understanding of the no original research policy is very important.
  • Fifth, there are a few things which are taken very seriously. One is dealing with matters concerning living (and recently deceased) persons. You know enough about that already that I'd just refer you to the BLP policy for a general read. Another is copyright of text and images, but that's a discussion for another day.
I hope this helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, TransporterMan. I'm grateful for you taking the time to look over my edits and give me detailed feedback. Your input is very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talkcontribs) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Scaleshombre (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
So far nobody's reverted me so that gives me hope. Meantime, let me pick your brain on a broader related issue. In recent years, Wikipedia has likely gained in importance as a "vetting" tool for employers, clients and others considering doing business with someone. Naturally, the one doing the vetting has the lion's share of responsibility in judging an entry's reliability and supplementing it with other research. That said, do we bear some degree of ethical obligation to researchers to ensure an entry presents, as far as possible, an accurate, well-rounded picture of the subject? In the case of Ms. Caesar, I was concerned that universities or other organizations looking to employ her and/or give her some sort of public platform would come away with the impression that nothing about her merits further scrutiny. What are your thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
We do have an obligation to present a balanced point of view, see NPOV, but that obligation does not set aside our other policies, such as those I've mentioned above. Indeed the first sentence on NPOV reads, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis rearranged.) Again, we're not here to right great wrongs or be a who's who or serve any particular constituency: we're here to create an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. If the need of an employer for vetting goes beyond the kind of information which might be found in a biographical article in, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, then that need may well not be satisfied here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Teutonic Takeover of Danzig[edit]

I just saw you closed the WP:DRN case because nobody replied to my request. Contrary to your claim, the dispute is not resolved, I just waited for some neutral input instead of editwarring with someone who refuses to discuss. Unfortunately the whole procedure seems to be a complete waste of time. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I took the liberty of adding a shortcut to your essay WP:DISCFAIL.

Have you considered moving the essay into the "Wikipedia:" space? It is an incredible useful guide and i think more people should see it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile, sorry about the slow reply; I've been traveling and am just now back in the saddle. Thanks for the shortcut. As for moving it into the WP–space, I have no objection per se but I've always been too worried that it's too opinionated, too niche, and too jokey. It would require some reworking to keep it from being expressed as my personal opinion, as it is now. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi TM, hope your travels went well.
I'd be happy to help with the copyediting as needed, and we could perhaps open an RfC to get more input if you think helpful. I am interested in getting this out to a wider audience because (1) I think it fills a very important hole in the guidance available for editors working in difficult editing environments, and (2) it serves as a helpful structure for admins who have disparate views on what is acceptable outside of WP:DR.
Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me have a few days to get caught up and address a few other issues and then I'll take a crack at it. If I get stuck, I'll holler for help or let you know when it's done, in any event. Thanks for the friendly shove. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Mediation Rejection (Income Inequality)[edit]

I have been notified that my request for mediation has been denied. Is it your opinion that I should continue to make edits to the article on a piecemeal basis ... or is another message being implied (i.e. I shouldn't bother)? Is it your opinion that the article is not biased, and should therefore not subject to criticism or edit? Or is the decision strictly that a separate criticism section is not warranted? Just seeking clarification of meaning and intention of the decision. One other thing, if my observation that the vast majority of editors are 'like-minded' is correct ... and someone proposes to make edits that posits an opposing viewpoint and the edits are removed and/or challenged ... how would a request for mediation ever meet Prerequisite #5? All the other editors would need to do is not agree to mediation. Doesn't this conundrum make it virtually impossible for someone to make critical edits in good faith? In practice, its a firewall that protects the world-view of the majority. With that in mind, has Wikipedia undertaken research to determine the composition of its editors? Are its members evenly represented or philosophically and politically skewed? One would think that if Wiki were serious about being 'neutral' that they would want to know this. Thanks.Tolinjr (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The closure is not intended to imply anything about the merits of the dispute or about the merits of the position of any particular party to the dispute. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and, indeed, more applications for DR fail due to refusal or failure to participate than succeed. (Which is, by the way, also true in real world dispute resolution.) However, to require participation or to have some kind of mandatory content arbitration flies in the face of the wiki model on which Wikipedia is based. As for the demographics of Wikipedia editors, there have been any number of studies, but so long as Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then the demographics are simply what they are at any given time. What that may imply, I do not say, but if you'll take a look at the article on Reliability of Wikipedia you'll find that we generally produce a product which is at least very close to the reliability of other encyclopedias, if not equal or better. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. A couple of quick thoughts in closing ... I noted that in a previous discussion on your 'talk' page, that the term edit-warring was used. Having been thorough this process, and having interacted with several other editors, I must say that it is an excellent word, indeed. The Wiki system that you describe is one that places moderates (such as myself) ... and certainly conservatives ... in a very difficult position. As I am sure you are aware, the demographics of current editors is not a reflection of the public at large. A brief review of editor's user pages and their selection of userboxes reveals this almost immediately. As matter of fact, as I was building my own user page, I found dozens of pro-socialist, green party, anti-Bush, 99 per center, Occupy Wall Street, pro-Marx and Saul Alinsky, and almost a hundred various pro-Obama userboxes available ... yet I could not find a single one ... not one ... that was labeled 'business-owner' or 'entrepreneur' ... and there was only one that mentioned 'free-enterprise' at all. This is clearly a reflection of the demographic of editors. In fact, it would be easy for Wikipedia to tabulate which userboxes are being used, and how often ... and the results would be quite clarifying. For the record, among the most frequent Criticisms of Wikipedia are systemic bias, partisanship, 'hive mind' consensus, and exposure to political operatives. I would submit to you that an article like "Income Inequality in the United States" would be particularly subject to all of these. In fact, I can tell you, based on their discussions, their editing histories, and their own user profiles, that at least two of the editors who conflicted with me are political activists. And one happens to be a senior editor who has the ability to erase or 'lock-out' other editors from the system. Not good. Take a look at Wikipedia:Systemic Bias ... the article admits that editors are self-selecting ... Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other activities, such as earning a living, are underrepresented ... and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics also discusses the fact that political bias exists and that one solution is ... Rather than only encouraging existing users, attempt to recruit new users to the project who can help counter these biases. TransporterMan ... I am one of those new users ... and I attempted to counter those biases ... and I have been effectively shut out of the system. Wikipedia seems to 'talk the talk' ... but it doesn't 'walk the walk'.

Irene Caesar[edit]

As someone previously involved with the page, I'm hoping you can weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Caesar. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

1896 Cavaradossi[edit]

Dear TransporterMan, Thanks for your comment on the Fernando de Lucia talk page. I am the guilty party it seems and I have left an explanation and am about to remove the offending statement from the article. Please do query any other blunders of mine you may find and a word on my own talk page will usually get a reply! Thanks again, Eebahgum (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the update and the correction. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hands off of Drama[edit]

I hate drama. But I like to make sure the Wiki has the most accurate articles. I'm not nearly well versed enough in Peter Sellers to be able to create a RfC or Mediation. Can you suggest/create one for me?--RandomLittleHelpertalk 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you've not been involved in the discussion you really shouldn't file for mediation or other moderated dispute resolution for the parties, but you can offer on the talk page to serve as a neutral party to help them formulate a RFC statement. The instructions on how to file the RFC are here and they're pretty straight-forward. What you would help with is step #3. Because of my duties at DRN (where I'm the coordinator for the next two months) and at MEDCOM (where I'm the Chairperson for the next five months), I'd prefer not to get involved with that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up on Wikipedia, HACNY[edit]


This Wikipedia person VQuakr (talk) removed by Atomic Hydrogen Power article without giving a reason that would be enough for the article to be removed.

My Atomic Hydrogen Power article consists of more than eight pages with quotes from science and trade magazine from scientists such as Nobel Prize winner in the 1930s, Dr. Langmuir, whose work on atomic hydrogen helped General Electric develop the atomic hydrogen welder in 1926 for international sales in the General Electric catalog. My article covers that and a lot more, and the atomic welder section is not a duplicate of what is on Wikipedia as the section I have handles its development by GE scientists. At the end of my article I have external links to GE films made of the atomic hydrogen welders in the 1940s that are on YouTube. My article has several sections including Dr. Langmuir's work with Dr. Wood on tungsten and thorium, as well as a brief medical section and more. Atomic hydrogen Welders were equipped with heavy suits and photographic film to measure radiation levels. My article also mentions a new particle regarding atomic hydrogen power later discovered in 1976.

One Wikipedia person, VQuakr (talk), had my article of Atomic Hydrogen Power removed, and that person seems to be quibbling about vocabulary of atomic hydrogen, as he feels it is not accurate. This "atomic hydrogen" term is what scientist Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Langmuir and other scientist named it, and the formulas they used to discuss it, and it is how it is printed in journals and trade magazines.

There is not much on Wikipedia about the development by early scientists of clean energy technology, or about General Electric prior to 1935. I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up. Who do I contact to have my Atomic Hydrogen Power put back up? HACNY (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The processes for contesting a deletion are set out at Deletion review. If that does not succeed then there is no further appeal, as far as I know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)