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.

External link in "Crawford Dunn" article to Dallas city website

The reason I wanted to link outside to the city's website is because it illustrates Dunn's logo he did for the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillyputty1967 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Edit war

I had invited User:Vettelisthebest to discussion, but he didn't responded [1]. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

les enfants terribles (café)

I don't know wiki from the inside - almost never log on so had no idea what had happened to my page until just recently didn't know anything about the warnings obviously since I'm the expert I'm also the prime source - but there are references I'd very much like to put the page back - do you know where the text is? Has it been kept - I don't have a copy as I thought it safe here.

Adrianstern (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)Adrianstern

The text can be probably be recovered. The normal process is to ask the administrator who deleted the page, but that administrator has apparently left Wikipedia. I'm going to ping a friend who is a sysop, Mr. Stradivarius, and ask him to restore Les Enfants Terribles (café) to your sandbox where you can work on it. (When you're finished with it and ready to take it live, you can put {{subst:submit}} at the top of it, which will submit it to Articles for Creation to get a review from one of the volunteers there before it goes live; that's not required, but it might help prevent it from being deleted again.) Alternatively, you can try to get it restored into mainspace through Deletion Review, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for that if I were you. Several points you need to know:

• If you have or had an ownership or other close interest in that place you should not be editing the article about it under our conflict of interest rules.
• Remember that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit: Once an article, or material in an article, is submitted it is subject to being edited or submitted to our deletion processes by any editor. It's not "your" article, it's Wikipedia's article once you submit it. Acting possessive about it is considered inappropriate page ownership and the fact that you do not choose to regularly log in to keep an eye on it or defend it is absolutely irrelevant because the article must stand or fail on its own merit without you shepherding it.
• You really need to read the Verifiability policy and the No Original Research policy to learn what kind of sources can and cannot be used. One kind which absolutely cannot be used as a stated source is your personal knowledge, or material which you have obtained by talking to other people, unless that knowledge is also stated in a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia. For all practical purposes, every assertion in the article must be supported by a reliable source.

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. For one thing, it's largely copied from http://lesenfantsterribles.adrianstern.com/main.pl, which means that it fails our rules about copyright violations. And I can't find any reliable sources online about Les Enfants Terrible at all, which means that it would be very likely to be deleted again. Subjects must pass the notability guidelines to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. If I restored this, it would probably just be a waste of everyone's time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, of course; frankly, I hardly remember it at all and can't remember if I included the copyvio issue in the PROD nom or not but I do remember that it was either unsourced or had no reliable sources and I couldn't find any, either. Thanks for giving it a look, Strad, I appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, you included the copyvio issue in the PROD nomination. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A word of explanation to Adrianstern: Due to the copyright policy violation issue, Wikipedia policy says that the material cannot be restored anywhere on Wikipedia, even in your userspace. Since it appears that the copyrighted source is probably your website, the copyvio problem can be overcome by donating your website (or at least the copied material) to Wikipedia. But that has an issue and two problems:

• The issue: I've not looked to see, so this isn't an accusation or a comment about your site, but most personal websites are not so picky about copyright issues as is Wikipedia, so there may very well be material on your website which is a copyvio of some third party. That material may not be donated to Wikipedia.
• First problem: When you do that, you're effectively putting your material in the public domain (or something very close to it, see the first paragraph of the "What it means to donate material to Wikipedia" section of Donating copyrighted materials for details, being sure to click through to the copyright license details), which to a large extent means that you lose control of how it may be reused here or elsewhere by third parties.
• Second problem: Donating the material only solves the copyvio problem, it doesn't solve the need to have reliable sources because your website, as a self-published source cannot be used as a source, even if donated to Wikipedia. To say that differently, it allows you to reuse the text but that text must still be properly sourced by third party sources.

Rather than restore the text, therefore, it would be much better to simply redraft the article from scratch, preferably through the Article wizard so it gets reviewed by someone at Articles for Creation to help insure that it has what it needs to survive. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK! I'll do what you suggest.

I'm not too clear about the copyright issue as I acknowledge copyright when I know the source. However I put a disclaimer on the site asking those who feel their rights to have been infringed to contact me.

My own content I can of course put into the public domain - but the article for wiki is not the content of my site - and as such the only rights owner would be me.

As the only living expert on the subject (as far as I know) I can now provide references to the existence of the institutions celebrated (most of them)

We'll see what reaction I get to the sandbox version

Thank you so much for your time and help

Adrian Adrianstern (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)adrianstern

Template talk:Caliphate

Hi, you mentioned here that a recent extensive discussion is required before one should seek assistance at DRN. At that time, I had discussed the case extensively, but that was many months prior to opening the case. Now the discussion has begun once again at Template talk:Caliphate where I have opened an RfC, but for which, unfortunately, I have not had an independent response. I'm thinking that I should open a case at DRN before time passes by. What do you think? Thanks.--Peaceworld 21:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You will need to wait for the RFC to close (the bot will remove the RFC tag), else the case will be closed at DRN for having a current RFC still running. As to whether to go to DRN, you need to take into consideration that all moderated dispute resolution processes — Third Opinion, DRN, and Formal Mediation — at Wikipedia are for the purpose of trying to help the parties in a dispute to come to consensus. That means, first, that all the major disputants must be willing to participate and, second, that there is at least the possibility that either one side or the other will give up or that some compromise is possible. (There's also a third possibility, that one side is clearly wrong under Wikipedia policy, but that kind of comes under the "giving up" part.) You have to judge for yourself if you think that is possible. Remember that since everything here is decided by consensus that "no consensus" is, along with a consensus for or a consensus against, a perfectly acceptable outcome, and has a set of ordinary outcomes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion

I'll just get straight to the point: why don't you run for ArbCom? No, really, I don't have anything against you; I really think you would be a good arbitrator. ;) I think we need people on ArbCom who have experience in resolving disputes, and you arguably have more experience in dispute resolution than almost any other editor here, having been very involved with the DRN and MedCom. Chances are you'll probably say no, but I just wanted to make the suggestion. I would definitely vote for you... --Biblioworm 20:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for those kind words and vote of confidence! But I fear that I have two, and perhaps three, strikes against me for that position: First, I have very little experience in dealing with conduct matters; if I were to entertain such a candidacy I think I'd need to work at ANI and perhaps be an ArbCom clerk for awhile. Second, on those few occasions when I have delved into conduct matters, I have found myself leaning far too much towards sanctions-as-punishment rather than the proper sanctions-as-motivational-correction point of view (and also being somewhat uninformed about the politics and culture of conduct evaluation). Working at ANI and clerking would probably help correct those issues but, frankly, I think I'm fine for the time being on the content side of the equation. Third, I'm not an administrator and I don't think a non-admin has ever had a successful candidacy for ArbCom. (An aside in regard to that: With nine open positions this time, it may well be that a non-admin gets elected for the first time simply because there aren't enough at-least-semi-acceptable admin candidates to fill all nine spots — and that came somewhat close to happening in last year's election. If a non-admin is elected it's going to be interesting to see what kind of admin powers, if any, they will be allowed to use outside committee business while on the committee. They'll have to be given, I think, the checkuser and oversight bits, but I'm not so sure about the admin bit and, if they do get it/them whether they'll retain it once their time on the committee comes to an end.) Again, I really appreciate the thought, but I think I'll probably pass for the time being. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Smartsheet

Hi TransporterMan. I was looking for someone that may have an interest in software pages and content work. I came across your username on the Talk page of an FA page from WikiProject Software and thought you might have an interest in chipping in here. The current article is a bit stubby and promotional. I've shared a proposed replacement on the Talk page, but as I have a COI, the proper procedure is for me to request someone else consider whether my work serves Wikipedia's objectives. Any chance you have a minute to take a look? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 05:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hi, why was this message sent? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

My question, too. I've been preoccupied at ArbCom, but check-in at DRN from time to time to see how things are going. Atsme^📞📧 05:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It was sent to everyone who is listed as a volunteer here because of the concerns expressed here and because we had a number of cases listed which were ready for a volunteer. Redrose64, I now see the reason for your question and have removed that editor from the list, but if the question then becomes, "Why was s/he still on the list?" it would simply be that no one has noticed it until now. Atsme, no one was singled out: Everyone in the volunteer list (including me) got a copy of the message. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

If you have a moment ...

Can you take a look at "George Foreman" ? I have no axe to grind here but just happened across the page. It was full of bad grammar, bad punctuation and thousands of needless links to words such as "Puerto Rico" which, if you live on Planet Earth, should be pretty self-explanatory. In fact, after I cleaned it up I saw another ten or twenty misplaced commas and pointless links but didn't bother fixing them. It could use a good going-over by a high school English teacher :)

An hour later it was reverted by some twit as "unconstructive". Fine, I don't care, but if anyone here would like the world to consider Wikipedia as a real source of information, those kinds of reversions need to be addressed.

Gracias muchas 210.22.142.82 (talk) 07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at it and don't consider the reversion necessarily inappropriate due to your removal of the links from a large number of terms. If you had a good reason for that, try reverting and at the same time making the case for the removal on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

i like

Good Bangaja7 (talk) 08:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediation Shenanigans

You recently accepted a case on behalf of the medation comittee. However I am not sure as to what "problems" are left to mediate, and I presume that the filer has just forgotten to withdraw the case. The filer of the case Code16 himself has agreed to everything that I asked him to do.

1. I had requested that Israr Khan be removed and the filer removed him
2. I had requested that Hallaq should not be given Undue weight and the filer removed the excess weight
3. I had requested that Hallaq should not be given a category all by himself and that was done by changing the entire article to create new categories.

So as far as I can see the current state of the article (which has been created through consensus and TP discussion with the majority of edits being made by the filer himself) looks good to me and as the filer himself created this state he should be good with it too. Be kind enough to decline/remove/nuke the case. 'For the BARBARIAN HORDE that causes the Mediation committee headaches' FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)