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, 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! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Thanks!

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

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

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)

Nullo space

{{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) I'm working on a reply. Hang in there a few minutes and I should be able to put it up here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I am anxiously awaiting your reply. Just kidding. Bunns 1775 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) And here it is, such as it's worth: Unless you have some reliable source which says that there was mandatory insurance prior to 1997, that fact is unsourced because the SACO report just says "supplementary;" it doesn't say supplementary to what. Based on the sources you already have, you could simply say something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance." I wouldn't be surprised, however, if with a little searching you could find a reliable source for the mandatory part. As for verifiability vs. truth, let me defend it. The key to understanding why it works is that statements have to be verified by reliable sources. If you've not carefully read the WP:SOURCES section of WP:VERIFIABILITY and the sections that follow it, along with the reliable sources guideline, you really need to do so, because there's two components to verifiability: stuff has to be sourced (and not be original research) and the sources that are provided have to be reliable. The bar for a reliable source is pretty high, with the gold standard being sources published in peer–reviewed academic publications. Because Wikipedia is entirely volunteer–edited a lot of stuff makes it in that doesn't satisfy that standard, but stays in for awhile (or even forever) because no volunteer (a) who cares about that kind of thing, (b) has come across it, and (c) has chosen to take the time to {{fact}} or {{rs}} tag it (or one of the many other similar tags with slightly different nuances), or, much less (d) chosen to take the time to actually fix it, but that's the weakness built into the wiki form of this endeavor. Admittedly, reliability has its limitations and that's the reason we have to have policies and guidelines like WP:FRINGE. When everything is boiled down, "verifiability, not truth" is actually an exaggeration to make a point about reliability and sourcing and, to a much lesser extent, about truth. A more accurate statement would be, "generally–accepted reliably-established knowledge with reliable opposing views included, not truth." (To see some battles being waged over what is and is not a reliable source, take a look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.) The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar. The verifiability/reliability standard along with a few other policies (especially no original research, notability, and What Wikipedia is not) take the place, in effect, of the board of senior editors that paper encyclopedias have who make sure that the content that makes it into the books is suitable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC) BTW, another exaggeration that newcomers to Wikipedia run across is this (I wrote this as a potential essay, so "you" in it doesn't mean and isn't pointed at you, Bunns, but the universal "you"): The often-quoted essay What "Ignore all rules" means says, twice, "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing," and the essay Understanding IAR says, "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are." Both of those statements are absolutely true, so far as they go, but both are half–truths. Let me repeat them in a form which is a little more accurate: You are not required to learn the rules before contributing (but your contributions will probably not last very long if you don't). You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are (but you may feel that your edits — and your self–esteem — have been fed into a woodchipper if you do). These snide–but–real additions are particularly true for newcomers whose first experience at Wikipedia is trying to write an article from scratch. I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy. If you're going to try to learn–by–doing, then the only way to start is by editing existing articles and participating in one of the many other activities here. Oh, you'll still end up eventually reading the rules but the pain of being hammered into doing so (or if you are reading–the–rules–phobic, the pain of reading them) will be spread over a longer period and thus be gentler to your system. My recommendation? Before trying to do much here, set aside an half-hour or so, put on your reading glasses, and read the Article Wizard, Your First Article, Notability, Reliability, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not. If you are trying to write an article about yourself, your company, your product or website, your organization, or something else in which you have a vested interest, also read Conflict of interest. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of any of them, they're full of solid gold information. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) So please explain why Chalmers Johnson is a reliable source, and Millea Holdings Inc. is not. One is a biased liberal who uses terms such as "American Imperialism", and "American Empire". The other is a Multi-National Insurance holding company. The source I provided from Millea Holdings Inc. states Japanese Compulsory Insurance began in 1956. Bunns 1775 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I only consider Johnson to be presumably reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy .... Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. (Emphasis added.) 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) I didn't mean to imply that you used Chalmers Johnson as a reference. The articles regarding the accidents use him as a reference. It is common sense that even foriegn nationals srving in another country are subject to that countries laws (except those who are protected by diplomatic immunity, which military servicemembers and military contracters are not). If there needs to be a reference to that fact, we may be hard pressed to find that. Bunns 1775 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I am not old enough yet to require reading glasses...yet. Believe me, I appreciate you taking the time to debate this issue with me. I do realize that even though I have had my WP account for a few years, I am still a rookie editor. I am very passionate about certain things, and that can come off as arrogance. For that I am truly sorry, and is something that at times get the best of me. As for an appropriate compromise on these articles we can state "Millea Holdings Inc., a multi-national insurance holding company states that compulsory insurance in Japan began in 1956, however Chalmers Johnson claims that American servicemembers were not required to have insurance until 1997." or something to that effect? We can list all appropriate references.Bunns 1775 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Three points (you work faster than me, so these were prepared to respond to your next-to-last comment, above): If you have to use common sense or logic to synthesize facts to make a point, then it's prohibited original research. That's particularly true in this case where the treaty and Status of Forces Agreement caused Japanese law to apply in some cases and not in others. For example, one would, by your logic, conclude that all US nationals who are drivers of private cars in Japan would have to have number plates if Japanese nationals have to have them, but the SOFA goes to the trouble of specifically saying that, "Privately owned vehicles of members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall carry Japanese number plates to be acquired under the same conditions as those applicable to Japanese nationals." There are two problems with the Millea Holdings link: first, it doesn't say that US citizens subject to the Status of Forces Agreement are compelled to have the Japanese compulsory insurance, it only says that there is such a thing as compulsory insurance, and, equally deadly, it's not at all clear that jrank.org is a reliable source because it doesn't identify where it gets its information or do anything to prove that it is a "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (The Status of Forces Agreement, which you also cited doesn't say anything about insurance at all.) As for being hard pressed to find a reliable source, as I said above, "The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar." Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can find, Chalmers Johnson does not claim that American service members were not required to have insurance until 1997. See above re the Millea Holdings link. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Clarification: At least Johnson doesn't claim it in Blowback; I haven't looked at his other work. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I found a PDF about Auto insurance in Japan. here. Here is the source page. What about the US Department of State?. Bunns 1775 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Actually nevermind the PDF. It doesn't state anything regarding SOFA personel. The State Dept websites says all vehicle owners and drivers. It doesn't specifically call out SOFA personel, but further up on the page when it addresses passports, it specifically says SOFA personel are exempt from passport requirements. Now if the State Dept. says all vehicle owners and drivers are required to carry the compulsory insurance would that not include SOFA personel? Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:11, 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) I understand. Can I contact you for editing advice in the future? Not about this articles but questions in general. Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Absolutely, and you honor me far beyond what I deserve by even asking. All the best, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry to come in so late. I didn't see this conversation going on till now. I think the root of the misunderstanding between Bunns and myself is his false assertion that Americans in Japan (At the time of Padila and Eskridge) fall under Japanese law, which they don't. They fall under the SOFA agreement that America has with Japan. Their exclusion from Japanese law doesn't go as far as diplomatic immunity, as implied above, but they don't fall under Japanese laws. Thus American's and their insurance doesn't fall under Japanese law it falls under the SOFA agreement. One only has to look at the Padila case. When the accident occurred she was taken to the base and not tested to check if she was under the influence of alcohol. Indeed as told in the 1998 Eskridge car accident article (which will be affected by this ruling as well as the Padila article) when Eskridge hit and killed Yuki Uema with his car he was held at the US base and not arrested or turned over to the Japanese as required by Japanese law because he was protected by the SOFA agreement. SOFA personal live under a different set of laws they ARE NOT subject to that country's laws. -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) As for the article just to be clear as per your third opinion the only thing we can put in the article would be something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance."? -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Based only on the Johnson book and the SACO report currently cited, that is indeed my opinion, as stated above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC) This is directed to Esemono. For the record I am done with this conversation. I was correct in my edits, I just about it the wrong way. However if you still choose to be stubborn and ignorant, thats on you. The US State Department website site states all vehicle owners and drivers are subject to the compulsory insurance in Japan. I am no longer going to argue these points. I am in the service and was stationed in Japan for 3.5 years. We were REQUIRED to have both Japanese Compulsory Insurance, and supplemental coverage on our personel vehicles, and yes we were required to have license plates. Even though we are covered by the SOFA agreement, we are still accountable to Japanese law. Just look at the 1995 Okinawan Rape Incident. US Service members serving time in JAPANESE prison, sounds like they were tried by the Japanese legal system. But how can that be? SOFA personel are not bound by Japanese law. I know more on this subject than you Esemono, so before you respond please realize I have lived in Japan as a US Service Member covered by the SOFA agreement. I owned 2 personal vehicles that were registered in Japan. I paid the annual Japanese Road Tax, and was required to obtain and maintain Japanese Compulsory Insurance and additional coverage. 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{^screech_harrass} 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

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Dougstrach's talk page.
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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookson Group

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)

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

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
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)

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