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, 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!

That recent request for Mediation[edit]

on the Chantry Island Lighthouse Tower article... I don't know what to do about the two editors, have been trying to talk to both, trying to help but the situation kind of reminds me of a hornet'e nest and I really don't want to get stung. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Kudos, Shearonink, for trying to do dispute resolution on that dispute. I see that Sergecross73 is attempting to do mediation on the article talk page, but that Imasku may have decided that the grapes were sour and chosen to leave Wikipedia. We'll see if Sergecross can lure him/her back, which would be a good thing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent comments at the RfC for policy[edit]

Thank you for your persuasive and unprejudiced comment that you posted onto the RfC. It has manifested a recherché aptitude for which I resolutely hold in high regard. I am eminently rapt by the counsel you have given and, ergo wish to be involved in serving the process for resolution of velitation. If you oblige, it would be held in esteem for you to make plain how I would make best of my service to that undertaking. Much obliged, Solomon. ὦiki-Pharaoh(talk to me!) (contributions) 14:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Since Sam Walton has taken this part of the discussion to Wiki-Pharoah's talk page, I'm hatting it so it continues there, rather than here. See below for my response to W-P about dispute resolution and any continuation of that part of the discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Wiki-Pharaoh: Using a thesaurus to find big words to use here doesn't make you clever, it just makes you hard to understand. Sam Walton (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: Do you take note of WP:CIVIL because I am not here to be berated by you or anyone else for that matter. I have introduced ideas into a discussion which you do not approve of and perhaps you are uncomfortable with my use of vocabulary however, by now I have assumed your posture to be offensive. Now far as I can see you are an employee of Wikimedia foundation so do you want to give me the complaint contact please, thank you. ὦiki-Pharaoh(talk to me!) (contributions) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Wiki-Pharaoh: It was not my intention to be uncivil, merely to point out that you'll find other editors are much more receptive to your messages if they don't feel like they're being talked down to. While it's true I am a WMF contractor, edits made from this account are made in my capacity as a volunteer and generally have nothing to do with my paid work. Sam Walton (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
@Samwalton9: At any point have I drawn lines in the sand and started to attack editors personally? Never, one would be perceived better if they focused on content rather than me and my decisions to use whichever vocabulary I know. You are able to edit Wikipedia because you are a beneficiary of "free speech." Then let me use my right to project myself in whichever and whatever way I feel best reflects my views for as long as they are not taken offensively and that they do not obstruct the project or violate its policies. I will not be bullied by you and making comments at me and about me are not constructive. By me introducing new ideas or trying to foster conversation is not a bad thing especially when it comes down to issues of sourcing content. If you have suggestions about how I can better understand Wikipedia then I am very happy to hear them and try to act on them, in the best way I can. However, once again, when you make comments directed towards me personally or about how I talk to people on their talk pages it makes me feel uncomfortable. I am, as always, amenable to resolving dispute and conflict. However, I cannot accept being bullied into a corner simply because people do not agree with me. Just like you, I'm an editor and we both want to help the world get access to knowledge, but I find it equally important that the integrity of the knowledge is protected. I hope you understand, Kind regards ὦiki-Pharaoh(talk to me!) (contributions) 16:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Conversation taken to User talk:Wiki-Pharaoh. Sam Walton (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Solomon, because of your terminology I'm not sure whether you're serious, making fun of the idea of doing dispute resolution, or attempting humor, but I'm going to presume that it's either the first or the last. To get started, simply go to Third Opinion, carefully read the entire page, and then if you're still interested, look at the list of opinion requests and see if there's one which appeals to you. If there is, link over to the discussion, read through it, and if you still feel that you're interested in it, go back to the 3O page and remove that request with an edit summary of "Took one to give opinion, # remain on list." Then go to the talk page and give your opinion, stating first that you're a 3O volunteer and are there to give an opinion. Don't wait any significant period of time between removing the request and giving the opinion or the disputants will think that you forgot. Be serious in your opinion — a little humor is okay, but go easy and don't let the humor make your opinion ambiguous — and justify your opinion carefully using references and quotes from Wikipedia policy, but keep it as short as possible. According to your user page you are (as I am) a lawyer, so you should know how to do that. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Oh, and PS you might want to also read my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian — you, of course, don't have to follow or publish any such standards, but you might find them to be interesting and also read my history of 3O's not being bindingTM 16:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to AN discussion[edit]

Hello. Would you come to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Victuallers and User:Sander.v.Ginkel - questions for comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Previous request for mediation (denied) on John Fleming (American Politician)[edit]

You denied mediation based on a premature request. I have requested and received comments through WP:RfC. I think everything has been said. Recall that this was resolved in 2013 but is back again with no new facts. Should I do another formal request for mediation or can you reopen? Thanks in advance. Tomuchtalk (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

A new filing will be required, but it will also be rejected so long as the RfC is running. RfCs ordinarily run for 30 days, see WP:RFC and prerequisite to Mediation #8. All ediors who participated in the RFC or recent preliminary discussion should be included as parties if and when you do refile. - TransporterMan (TALK) 13:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the tip. For future reference, is 30 days the minimum, or is there a lesser minimum but you recommend 30 days in this case? Tomuchtalk (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. There's no fixed-in-stone duration (which is why I said "ordinarily") but, since the purpose of RFC's is to seek community input, ending one too quickly or simply because there's been a lag in folks joining in kind of defeats the purpose of it having been done in the first place. Once there's been a long lag, say a week or two, that's a different story, however. There's a gazillion RFC's out there at any given time, and it can take folks awhile to spot a new one and get to it on their priority list. Note that while the filing party can withdraw the RFC, doing so after folks have joined in can be controversial unless it's to implement a clear SNOW result. - TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedian in Residence BoF at Wikimania 2017[edit]

Hello!

My name is David Alves (User:Horadrim~usurped), and I'm an Wikipedian in Residence at RIDC NeuroMat (User:Horadrim). I've reach your contact through the Wikimedian in residence page in Outreach. As you may know, Wikimania 2017 is coming! I am here because, as a fellow WiR, I believe this would be a great opportunity for us to share experiences, discuss difficulties and exchange solutions, creating a community among us capable of supporting in other projects that would benefit from residents. In that sense, I have submitted a proposal of a Birds of a Feather activity to Wikimania that you can check out here. I hope to count with your support in this project and would like to invite you to join us if you participate in Wikimania. In case of any doubts, please feel free to contact me, either in my talk pages or by e-mail at david.alves(at)outlook.com.

Thank you very much! ‎Horadrim~usurped (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call Reply[edit]

Hey, TransporterMan,

I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, and ratehr have moved back to [1], so feel free to remove me from the DRN.

Thanks, Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) at 22:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick FYI[edit]

It's not that I'm avoiding being active at DRN, but some of the disputes dictate recusal while others are already being handled before I'm aware of them. Just wanted you to know that I do have it on my watchlist, and participate when the op presents itself. Hope that is adequate for inclusion. Atsme📞📧 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How to become an auto confirmed editor[edit]

I was wondering about how to edit silver locks on some pages? Please reply asap.Peace out 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talkcontribs)

See here for the details. You ought to be autoconfirmed already unless you're editing through Tor. But even if you're autoconfirmed, you can't remove the silver locks: they won't interfere with you editing the article if you're autoconfirmed, but only a administrator can remove them. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I sent you a massage and you haven't replied. Please reply asap.Peace out 04:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talkcontribs)
Sorry for messaging you to much but I was wondering how to help edit peoples articles for summation.Peace out 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talkcontribs)
See my reply, above. If that doesn't answer your question, please be more specific. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)