User talk:TransporterMan

---

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, unless it is marked with "(Not watching)", in which case it's just an informational posting and I am not watching your page and you will need to contact me here on this page if you want to discuss the message 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! Please click here to leave me a new message.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't know how to proceed

Hi! You recently left a greatly insightful comment in Talk:Sharon A. Hill regarding a request for third opinion I made. I proceeded with the steps (approximately) but since then my edit has once again been reverted. I am unsure how to proceed as it is now the third time that my edit has been reverted but two of those were by different IPs. None of the three reverters has responded to my justification for my edit nor given any meaningful reasons for their reverts ("No consensus" and "Nope. Here we go again. YOU explain your edits to long-standing text in detail on talk. Especially the COI comment... I don't think you understand what COI means.") What do I do? I thought AN/Edit Warring might make sense if it was the same editor but it being three different ones (I hope, unless Rp2006 is purposefully unlogging which I highly doubt and in any case would assume in good faith he isn't), but seeing how it's a bit more complex than that I'm somewhat lost on how to proceed. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Just realized both IPs fall within the same IP range so is highly likely they are the same person. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Welp, the IP has now "contacted [my] university about [my] Wikipedia vandalism" so I guess I'll have to escalate it to AN regardless. Fun. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

American Mafia ?

I have one diddly issue with your close of American Mafia. There isn't an article talk page, because the filing editor didn't identify an article that exists. However, the unregistered editor appears to be a troll, so it doesn't make any real difference how or why their stupid post gets closed. Thank you for closing the Aaliyah dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but that was an issue with our listing bot when used by editors who aren't syntax savvy. All the bot wants is the exact name of the article and doesn't deal well with additions, errors, or variations. In this case, they put "Wikipedia" in front of the page name, so generated a redlink. If I hadn't closed it, I would've corrected it. And there wasn't an issue with the poster knowing the location of the article, since in the DRN listing s/he refers to the content of the article:

"'Ma- fia' is Italian slang for 'My Daughter', the origin of the vigilante secret self protection organization, formed to protect young girls from nobility, with assistance from the Catholic church. This article ignores this fact, yet promotes another ethnic slur..." (Emphasis added.)

So there was no need to correct the link just to help them find the article. And since they could find the article, if they can't find the talk page then CIR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal EL

Just for your information, the external link I inserted went to an old version of the page in question and was shortened with w.wiki. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir After my apologies I haven't given any legal threats to any editor .

Yes I just raise my voice against something which is I feel I should. Yes I did mention about a editor to some one in his talk page as 7 found he 8s involved in many Indian caste page. Hope I clear your doubts. Now it is your wish how we will address this issue. Thank you once again. S Das0406 (talk) 21:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I quote you: "As I m not in India I can't do anything against it but we should raise this issue in obc commission of India." Per the No Legal Threats policy: "A legal threat, in this context, is a threat to engage in an external (real life) legal or other governmental process that would target other editors." (Emphasis added.) A proposal to raise anything with the OBC Commission is a proposal to engage in an external governmental process. It would seem to me to be a clear legal threat, but we'll see what the admins say. The bottom line is that we've decided that threats to bring in parties outside of Wikipedia, especially legal/governmental ones, warps, manipulates, and chills the possibility of proper discussion and discourse. — TransporterMan (TALK) 22:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Sir I understand what I did may be against the Wikipedia regulation act and I will respect there action. But yes still I believe what I should. The editor I complained about is not considering the documents provided by many users. His content in many Wikipedia page about Indian caste system which I found very offensive. When at some point while discussing about the same topic I address he maintained that he will not considering a point maintain by a author puratan(means old era) world but at the same to he is relating Varna system to cast system of India where Varna was puratan period social hierarchy and caste system was a century old tradition during British era by simply reference to some journal and book by foreign author who clearly maintain they assume there Varna.But at the same time books written by some Indian authors address the Varna in different. Actually in wikipidia Varna page it is clearly mentioned that a cultivater and agriculturalists is comes under Vaishya Varna. It is a very complicated subject so with any thoroug discuss it is very hard to address between Vaishya and Sudra Varna system. As due to mugal rules followed by British gov in India many things changed accordingly in Indian society. We just request him to remove that Varna part unless at until no such evidence . Hope you got my point sir. Nice experience with u and wish u happy New year. S Das0406 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Transporter Bridge

Hi! Saw on your userboxes you like transporter bridges, so I thought I should share Vizcaya Bridge with you, a bridge from my home town (and from my understanding the world's oldest transporter bridge, but that might be wrong). You can take a tour of the top, and from there see the whole Bilbao Abra as well as the mountains to both sides, like in the image I've thumbnailed to the side. It's only a shame I'm so afraid of heights... A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it very much. I spent a few years studying and cataloguing transporter bridges so I'm quite familiar with Vizcaya (which is not only the oldest existing transporter bridge but probably the first one ever built). The irony is that I've never seen one in person, more's the pity. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with a dispute

Hi! You've given me good advice before on disputes, so I hope you don't mind me asking for some more. This is a bit of an unusual situation, as I myself am not a party to the dispute nor has either dispute requested resolution, but I really want to do as much as I can to prevent the issue from continuing what I see as a probable path towards ANI. A very new editor, Polycarpa aurata (PA) recently started a COIN thread involving Tomwsulcer, an experienced editor with over 20k edits. After the thread, PA proceeded to investigate some more of Tom's edits. I note that this could be a violation of WP:HOUND, but I think the rookie's intentions are good. PA posted this thread on my user page, so I replied there the best I could. I also wrote a message on Tom's page that amongst other things reminded him not to edit war, go to the proper noticeboards for disputes, and not to bite the newbies. He's since blanked the page without responding. I'm afraid the issue might be heading towards a drama-prone noticeboard but really want to avoid that as I don't think that's a great experience to have when you've only made 200 edits, and likewise fear editors getting their behaviour picked apart after years of contributing might retire out of anger. What can I do? Should I even do anything? Apologies for the wall of text, A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

While that may not be a great experience for a newcomer, he's jumped right into the middle of some controversial areas. I note that his reversion of Sulcer's additions to Raynard S. Kington, per his assertion on the talk page that they aren't supported by the cited materials, have not been re-reverted. While Sulcer hasn't replied to that talk page note, neither has he reverted. This edit by Polycarpa is concerning, on the other hand, and I'm thinking seriously about reverting it. And this edit seems either unnecessarily antagonistic or naive. I think you've given good advice on your talk page, but unless one or the other of them comes to you for help my recommendation would be that you just let things work out. Polycarpa has jumped into the deep end of the pool and he needs to learn to sink or swim. Remember that the admonition about not biting newbies has always been observed more in the breach than the observance and is almost never, at least in my experience, the basis for any administrative or ANI action. If I've missed the point - which I'm sometimes wont to do - please let me know. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, TransporterMan :). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:BlueboyLINY

User:BlueboyLINY keeps deleting discussions on talk pages, then puts personal attacks on my talk page. User:BlueboyLINY has a WP:COI. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)W

Speak to an administrator (I'm not one) or after *carefully* reading and following the instructions (which you did not do at Third Opinion), file at ANI. Those are the remedies for conduct violations. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Religion in Egypt

Well, well. Not only was that dispute premature, but the filing editor was ranting, and was then blocked as a sockpuppet. That didn't last long. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"REOLYSIN®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect REOLYSIN® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#REOLYSIN® until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Quesion

Hi. Hope you are doing well. I am writing with regards to your removal of 3O request. WP:DISCFAIL and WP:THIRD require ensure the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. I could not find any word requiring it to be "recent". The issue for the case I had raised was discussed in details and discussion reached to the point where one party quit responding since they didn't have anything further to say. I reached for advise on how to handle such circumstances, if other side is not interested to reply anymore, and was told to use dispute resolution board in such cases.

Moreover, I do not see how being recent or 2 month old would make a difference in this case, both sides said their arguments, have nothing else to add and consensus still not reached. Considering all said, can you please relook your decision and reinstate 3O? Thanks in advance! Abrvagl (talk) 09:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, I saw your close too. That thread was split for some reason, my replies are actually below it, see Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Destruction_of_cultural_heritage discussion. I want to clarify some things since I'm being misrepresented here; A) I didn't "quit" the discussion, I had the feeling it was becoming circular so I didn't plan to repeat myself for the 4th or 5th time; B) I made my point very clear regarding Medvedev statement and I still don't find the need to elaborate further. To be honest, I'm not interested in this 2-month-old revived discussion and I find your close to be accurate since that discussion stopped seeing engagement for a long time. And btw, the other issue discussed regarding Hyperallergic was raised in RSN by OP himself, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_376#Hyperallergic. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)