User talk:TransporterMan
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
Thanks!
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Choco_chip_cookie_bitten.jpg/100px-Choco_chip_cookie_bitten.jpg)
N5iln has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!
oldcsd
Re: GoodSearch opinion
Thank you for the information. Understand the comments and agree with the suggestion. Uptodateinfo
Thank you.
for this. I sort of oscillate between using Twinkle because it's easy, and trying to be less bitey. Hence, I really appreciate the effort you took to leave the message for him. Cheers, {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the thank you. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
wp:coi
Yes, I clarified my remarks on the article's talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{trout}}
Whack declined - CSD should be only for the most obvious, most blatant cases; this one has at least a tiny bit of credibility and needs to be, if anything, an AfD. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Third Party Opinion re 1996 Padilla car accident license plates and insurance
Copied to Talk:1996_Padilla_car_accident#License_Plates_and_Insurance.
If discussion continues please continue it there, not here — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion Collapsed
|
---|
You have made your point. I am not going to edit the articles relating to the Okinawa car accidents again. Let me ask you this. Would inserting the sentence "In addition to the compulsory insurance, in 1997 US Servicemembers were required to obtain supplementary insurace." into the article be inappropriate? Last thing, and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. The entire concept of "verifiability, not truth" is entirely bullsh!t. When I hear that I think that obvious inaccurate information can be added to an article as long as there is a reference to that material. Even if it is obviously not true. For example: Someone publishes an article about the JFK assasination, references the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, and states that all Marines are trained to assasinate political figures. According to the "verifiability, not truth" concept, someone could write an article regarding this, cite the article, and no one could do anything even though it is obviously false information. In my opnion this does not make for a well written encyclopedia. Thanks. Bunns 1775 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I only consider Johnson to be presumably reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: The publishers of Johnson's book, Metropolitan Books (hard cover) and Owl Books (softcover), are both imprints of Henry Holt and Company, a major and respected publishing house. However, if you'll look back through my opinion, you'll note that I did not rely on Johnson as reliable so much as I took the position that, reliable or not, his book did not support the things he was being cited as a source for. The only time I suggested that something that he said might be used to support something was when I said that he might be used as a source for the fact that Padilla did not have insurance; that's a fairly safe citation since it could be libelous if it is false and since Holt would, therefore, be likely to do fact-checking on that kind of thing for their own protection, especially if Johnson is, as you say, a "biased liberal" and his work likely to be controversial. I'm sorry, but I don't recall how Millea Holdings Inc. fit in and I don't recall evaluating it or considering it in giving my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just found your Millea Holdings link. I'd forgotten it when wrote earlier today, so let me look at it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
By the time we are done you may want to start your first archive. Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) First, nothing to apologize for, I've enjoyed our discussion. Second, I'm afraid that I've already seriously strained the boundaries of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and to go further to help you evaluate new sources would take me over the line altogether, so I'm going to have to respectfully — and truly regretfully — decline your invitation to do that and, if I know anything about Marines, it's that you'll understand an obligation of honor. You've got the tools, however, and I don't doubt for a minute that you'll do fine with them. Go forth boldly and go get 'em! Finally, I hope you don't mind, but just for the sake of propriety I'm going to put a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, just noting that it occurred. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
TransporterMan, I enjoyed our debate and thanks again for taking the time to talk. Bunns 1775 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
You've Got Mail . . .
. . . and I sent it to you via the "email this user" link. kcylsnavS{screechharrass} 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Adam Birch 3rd Opinion
![]() |
The Third Opinion Award | |
Thank you for your help. Your helpfulness made everyone happy. Regards, --Manway (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — Manway (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
- Thank you very, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
3O
In re: [1]. I suggest you look at the dispute [article history] at least 5 people are involved, so the removal of the item from 3O was perfectly appropriate.
P.S. I am only "involved" because I was trying to mediate the existing dispute. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, it was only brought to 3O after Nutrieg was unsatisfied with the 3 responses he got at the RS noticeboard. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right and I'm probably wrong. I didn't realize that you were a Third Opinion Wikipedian, but I now see that you are. If you weren't I probably wouldn't do this, but I've self-reverted my relisting and re-removed it from the list. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- No worries. I can certainly see why it would look improper for me to remove it at first glance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
{{Hangon}} for Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School
I have once again put the {{Hangon}} Template on the article, but I'm quite unsure why this article would be moved to deletion. It doesn't seem to have vandalized the copyrighted content, and also doesn't seem to have plagiarized someone's work. I can see what you are talking about, but I think that this article shouldn't be deleted. Otherwise, I will improve this article to Wikipedia's standard. But thanks for your notice.
Please contact me if you have any concerns.
Besides I'm only a Wikipedian for less than 6 months so I'm quite inexperienced. However the quality and standard of my articles will improve. Challisrussia (talk)
Michael Levin
Thanks for stepping in with a 3O at Michael Levin. Seems to have got us past a sticking point... Cheers. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Speedy delete of Pavel Parasca
Hi. On talk you recommended Pavel Parasca for speedy deletion. (Then you retracted.) But Dalderdj has added a large number of pages that all have what appears to me to be the same lack of notability -- being a member of a commission for a study. I've requested Dalderdj explain how they feel these people meet WP:BIO. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Donald Fiedler
You're welcome. What did I do? I don't remember meeting you before. As for Donald Fiedler — yes, I'd say that being the head of a significant organisation is enough to avoid A7. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
- Over the course of the day today you removed a couple of speedy tags I had added and agreed with me on a couple of others. You were tutoring me even though you didn't know it. Thanks, nonetheless. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 03:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You are quite right - sockpuppetry will get one blocked around here faster than anything else. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Village with offensive name
Just looked at your referral for Kotak, a village with an allegedly offensive name. The offensive word would be kotok (which is offensive slang for penis in at least Kyrgyz. However, Kotak should be ok -- it also appears on google maps for roughly the same location shown in the article -- Google Map of Kotak. Thanks for checking up on it, though! ~~
Sub-Saharan Africa
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute on the Sub-Saharan Africa article that you recently helped mediate. There's a problem with an aggressive new WP:SPA that has just shown up on the article's talk page, yet already demonstrates a strange understanding of the "lingo" of Wikipedia (for example, 1) and how to post and edit. He's also reverting back to the other disputant's preferred version of the article (and in the process removing sources), but without making any attempt at all at a real discussion -- just personal attacks. When you find the time, could you please drop by and have a word? Regards, Soupforone (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- The RfC still has a couple of weeks to run and is phrased broadly enough to cover the new editor's entry into the dispute. There's not much action on that, but it needs to be allowed to be completed. If you believe puppetry is involved, you might consider making a complaint at WP:SPI (I'm basing this comment purely on what you say above, however; I have no opinion about whether there is reason to suspect that puppetry might be involved). If the RfC proves fruitless, then you might consider reposting the dispute at the Third Opinion project, but be aware that that once there are more than two editors involved in a dispute it no longer really comes within the purview of that project and your request may be removed for that reason. Some participants in the project will, however, opine in disputes with more that two editors, so it might be worth your while to go ahead and list it. If you don't do that, you might take it to WP:MedCab. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. Soupforone (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Why did you attempt to add this AfD to the log in this edit? I can't find any attempt by anyone to nominate the article for deletion. And I don't know why someone would want to nominate Cookson Group for deletion in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- See my post on the AfD talk page. In short, I tried to add it via Twinkle and Twinkle failed, just leaving that one entry. As to why, the article has existed for 6 years wholly without reliable sources, thus failing WP:CORP. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Getting past the Twinkle problem (I don't use Twinkle myself, so I can't help there), and going to the merits of the article, I would note that WP:LISTED, particularly the second paragraph of the section, tends to suggest that nominating the article for deletion may not be the best plan for dealing with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm new at AfD'ing by the way. I looked for reliable sources for Cookson Group before nominating it and couldn't find anything other than passing mention of it on finance pages or in finance news. Is there some reason it shouldn't be AfD'ed? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)- Thanks, I didn't note your post before I posted that last one. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is still relevant with your prior comment being struck out, but this Google News Archive search finds over 500 articles (with no price to view them) mentioning this company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Before reading WP:LISTED my thought was that virtually all of those Google hits — which I had reviewed before making the nomination — would be non-significant as passing mentions, as opposed to a full-fledged piece (or part of a piece) about the company; ditto with listings at places like Yahoo finance or Hoovers. I thought this on the basis that any company can go public and, thus, get listed and, thus, end up with those kinds of references even if all it does is sell widgets in Nowheresville. I'm not grinding an axe here and don't have anything at stake but it really seems like there is a far softer standard on this basis for companies than there is for, for example, bands, but if so, so be it. Thanks for the advice. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is still relevant with your prior comment being struck out, but this Google News Archive search finds over 500 articles (with no price to view them) mentioning this company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I didn't note your post before I posted that last one. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do we bother?
When things like this can get posted? Be sure to scroll down. And this was the author's revised version of the page after userfying it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
template
Hi, thanks for your explicit response here and I still a question, whether Wikipedia discourages a template with red links in majority? I created a template to replace Template:Jiangxi which is almost redundant with Template:County-level divisions of Jiangxi. But my edit was reverted and I was told to create more articles before changing back to my version. Meanwhile, I find it frequent templates with many red links on wiki, such as Template:Driving licences in Africa. Thanks.--Symane TALK 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but due to my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I must limit my involvement in that article to opining about the issue posted at the Third Opinion project. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I was just asking whether or not Wikipedia has some rule somewhere to discourage templates with many red links, I don't think it would infringe any objectivity to my understanding. Well, still thanks for your previous response.--Symane TALK 11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's a question in dispute (or at least raised) at the article, I can't get involved as to take a position on that question could be seen as taking sides, depending upon which side of the dispute my answer happens to favor (which might then call the neutrality of my initial third opinion into question and weaken it). You might ask the question at the Content Noticeboard, at the Help Desk, or if you want to characterize it as a dispute, even as a new listing at the Third Opinion project. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, still the same problem. While you informed as the Third Opinion that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles", two users continue insisting on a so-called long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles. They start to warn me on my talk page and I risk being blocked in confronting this odd and fabricated "consensus" as they seems to have more finesses. So I'd like consulting you once again about what I shall do in this situation. Thanks.--Symane TALK 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- If a dispute continues, then other forms of dispute resolution should be used rather than edit warring. Let me suggest a request for comments, a request for assistance at WikiProject China, or a submission at the mediation cabal. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Third Opinion - round up
The dispute between myself and Nutriveg, to me, is about content. It may have degenerated a bit into behaivour. But it really centers on the content of that one particular edit. I would really appreciate a third opinion on whether it is encyclopedic attack the man rather than criticise the contents of his argument.Ttguy (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Copied to and replied at Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#Third_Opinion — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for third opinion
I'd like to express my thanks for your recent Third Opinion concerning the Newport Tower. I don't think that your opinion will cause an immediate resolution; but I do believe that it will help to improve the communication atmosphere on that article's talk page. --Other Choices (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- You're very welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done
I think your write-up at Talk:Eric Goodyear of Sweden was very well done. I, too, have questioned the 2-and-only-2 editors bit. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'll watchlist this page, please feel free to reply here or my talk page, if and as you choose. :) - Sinneed 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I like your template, so if you don't mind, I'll steal it for those times when I follow things from 3O... though I'll change it a bit to say "was once", since I don't feel comfortable "taking" 3O's at this time... my style is too abrasive.- Sinneed 15:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please feel to use or modify it with my compliments. I don't actually use it all that much because I'm so involved with 3O that in general I'll either opine on a listing or not join in at all because I don't understand it or don't have a clue (much less an opinion) on how it should be resolved and/or don't have time to do the policy/guideline/best practice research needed to figure it out. I have the concept, however, built into paragraph 6 of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Let me encourage you to take part at WP:3O. One of the nice things about 3O is that you can just jump in, opine, and ride off into the sunset leaving the — hopefully — grateful townspeople standing behind saying, "Who was that masked man?", without getting caught up in the emotions of the dispute. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It goes against my nature. ;) I had completely forgotten I ever took a 3PO, then looked through the log and found articles that are still on my watch list today. Mimosa pudica... humor there... I knew this plant from childhood and had always wondered what it was. My watchlist has bloated to 500 again. I collect articles. One of my favorite computer-things-to-do (yes, yes, I am a WP geek) is to click random and fix stuff. All the best and happy editing. - Sinneed 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please feel to use or modify it with my compliments. I don't actually use it all that much because I'm so involved with 3O that in general I'll either opine on a listing or not join in at all because I don't understand it or don't have a clue (much less an opinion) on how it should be resolved and/or don't have time to do the policy/guideline/best practice research needed to figure it out. I have the concept, however, built into paragraph 6 of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Let me encourage you to take part at WP:3O. One of the nice things about 3O is that you can just jump in, opine, and ride off into the sunset leaving the — hopefully — grateful townspeople standing behind saying, "Who was that masked man?", without getting caught up in the emotions of the dispute. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I like your template, so if you don't mind, I'll steal it for those times when I follow things from 3O... though I'll change it a bit to say "was once", since I don't feel comfortable "taking" 3O's at this time... my style is too abrasive.- Sinneed 15:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Luvthecity
Hi - I've created a Luvthecity wikipedia document to describe the listed company's details and describe who the site is hosted with, who they do business with and the impact that vertical search engines are having on the UK property market. Please can you review your suggested deletion? Kind regargs, Stepneyjack