User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TransporterMan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Third opinion

TransporterMan, thanks for your third opinion on Polyethoxylated tallow amine. I have not used this service before but I fondly imagined that you would stick around to discuss the dispute with us. Is this not generally the case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." And just like that encounter, most opinion-givers will just say yes or no and keep on walking, but some will stop and join in the argument. My feeling is that once you join in the argument, any weight your opinion had which derives from your position as a neutral observer is gone, so I don't stick around. If the opinion doesn't resolve the issue, then you can move on to additional dispute resolution through the dispute resolution noticeboard or through a request for comments or even through formal mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Brandish

But it did come to a standstill; he refuses to actually discuss anything. How is "I'm stealing your edits and selling them on black market." conducive to anything positive? If 3O isn't the place to take this guy, then where? Despatche (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not the "standstill" part that's missing, it's the "thoroughly discussed" part. If either editor will not engage in discussion, try these suggestions. If your dispute is more about the other editor's conduct than the content in question (3O doesn't handle disputes which are mainly conduct disputes), use RFC/U or ANI. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Man, I knew I was supposed to take him to RFC/U or ANI, but some of the mods told me it was better to go to 3O; bureaucracy, red tape, etc. Thanks a lot! Despatche (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Understand that all I'm saying is that RFC/U or ANI are the correct places for conduct disputes, but I'm not making any judgment about whether or not this should go there or not. That determination is for you to make. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlene Richard

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Charlene Richard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlene Richard

The article Charlene Richard you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Charlene Richard for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 06:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Charlene Richard

The article Charlene Richard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Charlene Richard for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 1ST7 -- 1ST7 (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Email

Hey mate, I've sent you an email. Hope all is well with you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:DRN and Volunteerism

Hey there, just wanted to apologize again if I spoke out of turn at DRN previously...in fact, I just added another comment to the discussion, trying to explain my understanding of why, at least in film articles, we don't include lists of differences unless there are sources that took note of them. I hope this will turn out to be productive rather than disruptive, much as my noting to the one editor that wikilinks are not reliable sources was intended to be.

Regarding the idea of being an official volunteer at DRN, I have to admit that I prefer to (usually) keep my WP editing at a "casual" level. I don't mind participating in discussions when I feel I have something worthwhile to say, but I'm also not the most tactful editor around, and the idea of being a primary moderator during a DRN filing is rather intimidating to me. And by "casual" editing I mean I usually don't even log in during weekends because I don't want to spend too much time here. :) That said, if you feel I can be an asset to DRN, I'm willing to at least list myself with the proviso that I may not be an exceptionally active one, and am more likely to chime in on the rare occasion than take an active hand.

Lastly, as someone with a BA in English Writing, I wanted to say that I was quite impressed by your comments at the filing. I imagine providing opinions on these things, especially in a manner both diplomatic and (hopefully) clear, can be quite an effort, and I appreciate that you're willing to put your energies into doing so! Regards. DonIago (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, please join us and try your hand at DR. Folks with your level of experience (and clean block log) are desperately needed and your clear analysis would be immensely valuable. And thank you for helping at White Queen. Don't feel that you have to take on every, or even most, filings if you join up. Doing one every now and then on a topic which interests you is absolutely fine, as is just dropping in a comment every now and then. While the practice is that one volunteer leads a case, that's not written anywhere and it's fine for any volunteer to chime in in any case. We try not to disagree with one another or step on one another's toes, but even that occasionally happens. I hope you join us, and thanks again. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you've forgotten that the comment you just made will forever be enshrined in the historical record. On your head be it! :p DonIago (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna echo TransporterMan...please try your hand out at DR. It's so awesome. In fact, I'm so passionate about dispute resolution I got a tattoo of the mediator barnstar. I don't expect you to do that of course though ^_^ Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Well now, this thread just became worthless without pictures! :p DonIago (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Dispute : Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati

Respected Sir i never with drew from the dispute resolution filed by me. I only mentioned i have no stamina left to bear insults and degrading of the subject. I demand justice Sir. Further instead of giving justice the people involved in the dispute had started Vendetta. All sections of talk page has gone to archives. Further they have started raising new issues against the subject after that dispute, which they them self accepted initially. I invite you to visit the article Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati for same The dispute filed by me was "Talk page of the article "Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati", Talk page of the editors themselves in discussion about the subject of the article, NeilN, Yunshui, Ihardlythinkso, Myself, Subject." I beg you and feel sorry if any language of mine was considered as with drawing of dispute RegardsSarower Sigh Bhati (talk) 07:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Next few days

I'm going to be busy in real life for the next few days (probably 3-14 days) and may not respond quickly, or at all, to postings here or by email. I also will not be participating much or at all at my usual Wiki-haunts. No big deal or disaffection, just work. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

DRN

Hey boss, you're alright for me to plod along and still do some administrative stuff on DRN. Promise I won't tread too much on your turf :) Steven Zhang (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, administrate away! (Indeed, there are some of the technical things I can't do without your help.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

for reverting the reversion of my mediation decline. Explanation on my page. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to my page watchers

Thanks for the vandalism cleanup that y'all undertook here over the last few hours. It is very much appreciated. Best regards and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

We love you TransporterMan! <3 DonIago (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Love, love, that's such a big word. Wonder who you or someone else pissed off, though--but there's little that can be done short of semi-protection. Drmies (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Who needs semi-protection when I've got you guys? I feel like Dumbledore must have felt. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your hard work

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I hope you know your hard work is appreciated. Helen Online 09:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. I truly appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi, as far as I know, the DRN is for content disputes, correct? I ran into this wiki page that directs users dealing with conduct issues such as incivility to DRN. Here [1] in step six the DRN is linked. I ask because I dropped a comment at what seems to be someone who was directed to the DRN over an issue of incivility. I left a comment informing them that DRN is meant more for content rather than conduct and gave them a few things to read. Please advise. Fordx12 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know whether they were attempting to say that dispute resolution (the link should be to WP:DR, not DRN, probably) by resolving the underlying content issues might resolve the conduct issues as well or just thought that content DR was for conduct as well. The reference to 3O in the following section is also inappropriate, because 3O doesn't handle primarily-conduct issues, either. It needs to be reconsidered, but I'm just about tapped out tonight and won't be on much during the weekend. Go ahead and take a shot at it, if you like, and I'll take a look when I get the chance. Best regards and thanks very, very much for the help at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Responding to a failure to discuss question

I told Urməvi almost two days ago to come and discuss about a problem on the talk page of this article[2]

He hasn't responded and continues to revert edits of other users[3]

I don't really think that i will get answered and it's pretty much of a waste of time, since he have had plenty much time to do that but used that on reverting others edits, what do you think? --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's entirely possible, but that surmise is unlikely to get an administrator to help you and you still cannot obtain content dispute resolution services without discussion. My recommendations on what to do when the other editor will not discuss are set out here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Charlie Elphicke

Hi TM. You were kind enough to help earlier with a problem on Christian Council of Britain. Could I ask you to look at Charlie Elphicke where I have had problems for a number of months and attempts to use wp:reliable sources are being frustrated? A string of SPAs with what appears to be a wp:COI and no interest in talk pages have reverted changes. At one point in November last year 2 SPAs started reverting my edits on other pages as well! I'm hoping advice from a third party would help -particularly as I want to expand the article. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

With dynamic IP's like this, there's not much that can be done other than asking for page protection to try to force the IP's to create accounts. Point out in your request that you've made a concerted effort to try to get them to discuss. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I just can't make any progress until I get this sorted. JRPG (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear TransporterMan, I'll see how things go and follow your advice. Thanks! --Iopensa (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

My Homepage & Competitions

Hi! I am a new user and I have uploaded my homepage with competions and my own travel writing blog. Please, if you have any spare time, come to my homepage and check it out. Thank you!
--Deutschland12345 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hey Tman, thanks for all your help at DRN. This is my first time there in a leadership role, so if I make a mistake or you have a suggestion etc. please feel free to ping me on my talk page. Your assistance and veteran expertise is appreciated. Thanks!! — Keithbob • Talk • 18:19, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

@Keithbob: Hey, no help needed from me, you're doing a bang-up job. My only one suggestion is that you might add your name to the volunteer list (at the bottom of that page), so your edits show up in the right column in the status box. Thank you for lending a hand and keep up the good work! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks my friend, I just added my self to the DR Volunteer list a few hours ago.[4] and now here too. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN request

Could you look at the PART II section of the United Nations thread when you have time. Nishidani made a reply in the middle of Yanktor's comment. This is not usually permitted but I don't want to hyper-manage things and/or get involved in something the coordinator would normally do. So please advise or correct as you see fit. Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've refactored that post and dropped a reminder in the discussion, but it would have been fine for you to do that as well. If someone gripes about the refactoring, then we can cite this policy if need be. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DRN Request - Palestine

Hi TransporterMan,

Reading your closing comment and just in case you would have missed it, I'd like to point out that the answers provided didn't focus only on the behaviour but also on the content and the sources.

"When I see Ykantor writing "I suspect he has no WP:RS" and knowing the existence of this section several months old and that was endorsed by all the contributors who commented it, I have no idea what to do."

Good continuation on the DRN. That is not always easy there. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:07, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to repeat: "I suspect he has no WP:RS". Those sources does not seem to be a wp:rs at a first glance. Eventually, if he will accept and write it in the article, we will find out those sources importance.

Jimbo Wales has said of this:

If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Ykantor (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to refile that case without any discussion of conduct, I'm sure it will not be closed. However, if this is a merely a sourcing issue you might get more help at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I will appreciate your advice, since I am not sure if it is a conduct issue. Basically it is a content issue since each of us (Pluto2012 and myself) want to add an opposing view. The process is stuck since Pluto2012 wants me to introduce a balanced text which provide both views. However, I do not see why I should add a mistake (in my view) to the article, to which there is no RS. I proposed him to add the opposing view, and then the supports of both views will be assessed . I hope to continue with the DRN process. thanks Ykantor (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ykantor and Pluto2012: I have reconsidered and reopened the dispute. I'll make some comments there, too. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hi, you closed a dispute resolution noticeboard application by me, because it was in the wrong place. Sorry about that, and thanks for pointing me towards RFC/U and ARBCOM. Both seem to be pretty serious, when what I really need is some advice how best to proceed, to clear the impinging. As you have had a look at this problem, can you give me some advice regarding how best to proceed? Or can you suggest someone else who is knowledgeable in this area who could advise me? --Rskp (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't really work in that area, but my recommendation would be to continue to try to work it out at AN. If you haven't received apologies yet, it's not likely that you're going to get them. But the primary place to ask for sanctions for that conduct is where you are already: AN. The only other possibilities of which I am aware are the ones I have already suggested. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. Look, thanks very much for that. I really appreciate you taking the time. Regards, --Rskp (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

More advice needed :-)

I mentioned several times on an article talk page the need to go to WP:DRN and listed a few of the content policy issues and all sides ignored me. Is that a clue that I should not bother? These issues already have led to community sanctions on the area in question, but the same meta-issues keep coming up and if there was an honest attempt to resolve them it would help a lot, instead of people hoping to play "gotcha" and get others banned. Sigh... Thanks for any help. User:Carolmooredc talk 17:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Should you not bother? Hard to say (I haven't looked to see what, specifically, you're alluding to, so am speaking in generalities), but folks who ignore policy or worthwhile arguments will often be more reluctant to do so if a neutral party is watching over their shoulder or is in control of the discussion at DRN or MEDCOM. On the other hand, even if they might ignore or refuse to participate in a trip to DRN or MEDCOM, they can't refuse to participate (at least not if their position is to be represented) in an RFC. Not all RFC's get much community response, of course, but it might be worth a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Might be tricky because of multiple issues and canvassing has been an issue in past RfCs. However, RfC/User might be best way to go for the most annoying issue since there is copious evidence for one issue, which is related to other issues. Thanks. User:Carolmooredc talk 20:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Istrian exodus

Dear TransporterMan, what should I do? The only action that User Direktor does is to revert my edits without reason. He refuses to participate in all discussions. Is this normal?--Silvio1973 (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you notice that I said, "If the other editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations that I give here. A RFC could also be an alternate method."? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear TransporterMan, thank you for your advice. I will follow the actions described in here. Indeed step 1 to 3 have already been followed. I move now on the next steps and try to remain calm and polite. --Silvio1973 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no intention from my side to canvass but I need to report the issue to you because I requested a 3O and you closed it because no discussion had place before. As suggested I tried to convince User Direktor to explain me why he reverted my sourced edit but he replied that my English is too poor and I should not be permitted to write on en:wiki. I am now caught in a "egg and a chicken" situation (no 3O because no talk had place before but no talk can have place because the counterpart refuses to discuss). On top of that I cannot react to any insult because I do not want to dirt my hands. Silvio1973 (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is that exact situation that my recommendations are intended to overcome, as best as possible. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

And in the end we arrived to the logical conclusion. I have reported User:Direktor to ANI. However, I have little hope. That is his/her pretty standard behaviour (go trough the other discussions he had or he's involved now) so I must believe this is the way WP works. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Open letter

Just for the record, I just sent an email with the following text to the editor of "Why all the hate for Wikipedia?" a Wikipedia-positive column by Greg Stevens in The Kernel which can be (and should be) read here:

Mr. Stevens,

As a dedicated Wikipedia editor, I'd like to thank you for your insightful defense of the encyclopedia.

There seems to be a legion of Wiki-haters each willing to try to sell the idea that WP is a worthless piece of crap but who, when you dig behind their protests, it becomes apparent that by far the majority of them are folks who feel - usually without justification - that they have had their ox gored in one way or another. A substantial portion of the rest are folks who, as you say, Just Don't Get It and think that WP is, or ought to be, something different from what it is.

What the haters fail to realize is just how successful WP is: It's the English-speaking world's quick go-to guide on just about any subject. And it didn't get to be that by being the kind of unreliable cesspool that the haters want it to be.

Is it perfect? No, far from it, either procedurally or substantially. But it works - unlike other endeavors such as Citizendium created to improve on Wikipedia's faults - and we're continually working to make it better.

Best regards,
TransporterMan

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion

Is this not enough discussion [5]? User stopped responding then made the change later anyway. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No, discussion must be recent. Re-request discussion at the article talk page and leave a talkback or a note on his or her user talk page pointing to it. Or you could just revert the changes and see if the revert sticks. If he or she fails to respond, consider my suggestions about what to do in that case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Collapsed conduct discussions at WP:DNR

Thanks for closing up the conduct discussions. You're right – they were entirely irrelevant. I hadn't wanted to let (what seemed to me to be) factual errors stand unchallenged, but I probably should have just shut down the discussion immediately rather than engaging. —me_and 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated

Hello, User:TransporterMan I have updated the dispute resolution discussion to reflect the changes you requested. I have also made edits to my User-pages for both User:olowe2011 and User:Wiki-Impartial. Thank you for alerting me to the requirement for these changes and I should have added these before. Furthermore if you would like to provide me further advice on Dispute resolution i'm very open to any and all suggestions you can give me on the talk page for User:Wiki-Impartial. --Olowe2011 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that. We've had occasion in the past when a party to the dispute would create a sockpuppet and then try to mediate the dispute to their advantage, so the parties really need to be able to know who they're trusting. Please refrain from bringing up conduct issues at DRN except to the minimal extent needed to prevent them from interfering with the discussion of content issues there. The discussion you've raised about edit warring and 3RR violations is not helpful. In truth, I would strongly recommend that you might begin gaining dispute resolution experience here at Wikipedia by working at Third Opinion before trying DRN more. (I work at both places, by the way.) With less than 600 edits, you really need to build up more experience of Wikipedia rules and customs before tackling the more difficult disputes which come to DRN and 3O is a good place to do it. That's just advice: anyone can volunteer at DRN who cares to do so, but it can be a difficult place to work even with a great deal of experience since some of the editors who come there for help are very experienced themselves. Heck, I work at 3O, DRN, and am a member of the Mediation Committee, and about all I do at Wikipedia is dispute resolution, and there are disputes which come to DRN that I won't touch with a ten-foot pole. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I can see why, its like a minefield. Also this email notification - Will this be in my Personal Email Inbox and if so which account does this apply to, Both olowe2011 and Wiki-Impartial are setup with different personal email addresses. Secondly I will look over the Third Opinion things and get to know it better, It's good to see a level headed Wikipedian running these kinds of things. Regardless I will get to gaining experience as suggested. --Olowe2011 (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN stuff

Hi TransporterMan, I'm still continuing with the current case at DRN. We're up to 12,000+ words I think and we still have a ways to go yet :-) I'm comfortable continuing till the end but if at anytime you have any advice or insights or feedback I'm open to benefiting from your experience. Also when it's over I'd like to check in with you and see if there was something I should have done differently in hindsight. For example maybe this case could have been better served at Mediation and I should have referred it there at the beginning or middle. I'm not sure, as I'm still developing this skill set. So just some thoughts for now. Again thanks for your support, guidance and input. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 05:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you're doing one hell of a good job and feel like you ought to be giving the rest of us tips, not the other way around. As for the question of whether or not this should have been referred to mediation, well, that's something that's up in the air between DRN and MEDCOM. We made it easier for things to go to mediation, but only one or two have been referred there. I, personally, have no problem with them sticking at DRN if the volunteer who takes them on has the skill set, patience, and stickwithitiveness to handle them. You obviously do. I'd already extended the life of that dispute to November 30 since you were making progress with it and would have no problem extending it beyond that date (or you can do it yourself) if progress continues to be made. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly feedback! I'll continue and we'll see how it goes. :-) -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#One day left to nominate, Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013,[6] I would like to nominate you. The published rules say that you don't have to be an administrator (the real, unwritten rules may differ), and IMO you have the temperament needed. Would you be willing to run? --Guy Macon (talk)

Guy, I am incredibly flattered, truly I am, but I think I'd rather not, at least not until after I (drum up the courage to) run for adminship again first and thus gain some experience dealing with conduct matters and I'm not ready to even do that yet. The day may come, but I'm just not there yet. Again, thanks very, very much for your confidence in me and I'll try to continue to deserve it in the things I do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Next matchday scenarios

Hello! I invite you to a new discussion on the matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios. Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator

Hi Tman, I notice the Dec/Jan spot is now open, I'd like to take, which would leave the Feb/March spot open for you or others. Does that agree with you?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely fine by me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Shusha at WP:DRN

It seems that the Shusha case will close soon unless people respond. Shusha is a trouble spot for WP:ARBAA2. I left notes for three of the editors named in the Shusha request, Zimmarod, Roses&guns and Hablabar. If you have discretion on how quickly this closes, could you consider waiting long enough to see if anyone will respond to this encouragement? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Talk:Actors Studio.
Message added 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks so much for chiming in. It helps!!! CaroleHenson (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tuition Fees

Thanks for making the effort to get involved. I notice that your reference out on the talk page of Vince Cable has been reverted - I thought you might wish to deal with that; as an interested party I thought it best if I didn't. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 15:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Question over dispute resolution

Hi TransporterMan. I am currently having a dispute with another user on the Carl Lewis page. Basically I am arguing some editor used a questionable source to make a claim in the field of medicine. Such source is not corroborated or vaguely hinted by other more authoritative ones and reports only a questionable claim (no names, dates or written works etc only a statement like "someone believes that..."). Therefore I found it was an unacceptable source of truth as the scientific community is built around consensus and proven verifiable facts. The other editor thinks I haven't been successful in disproving such claim. He gives credit to the dubious claim but didn't show me a clear reliable source that can corroborate it. I'd like to ask you what would be the more appropriate way to resolve the dispute in Wikipedia as I've seen there are different options. You can find our discussion here talk. The dispute is under the paragraph "Carl Lewis reverted edit (II)". Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

You could use any level, but since there's only the two of you involved in the discussion, why don't you try a Third Opinion to start? You can also go to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, Mediation Committee, or make a Request for Comments, but I'd think that 3O or even perhaps Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which isn't a DR forum but might give some particularized help, might be a better place to start. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice there was the option for a Reliable Sources Noticeboard. That has been my first choice. Thank you very much! JJCasual 19:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJCasual (talk • contribs)

Hi again. I think the Reliable Sources Noticeboard at [7] confirmed I was right. I have asked the other editor in his talk page if he can please restore my edit. Since he hasn't answered yet and he may well be out for the Christmas period or maybe unwilling to do so what would you suggest to close the dispute once and for all? I presume I shouldn't restore my change by my own initiative. Would a notification to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard appropriate to formally close the dispute? Kind regards JJCasual (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there are BLPREMOVE considerations, I have gone ahead and reverted the information and noted what I've done on BearMan998's talk page. I would have advised you to wait awhile for his response if that had not been the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your additional clarifications. JJCasual (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Helen Online is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Helen Online 09:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays!!

— Keithbob • Talk • is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of SSSIs

SSSIs such as "Allt Pontfaen - Coed Gelli-fawr" are defined and named by law; this one refers to the land between the first and the second name. Renaming this example to Gellifawr should not have been done for these two reasons: 1. You have changed the official name and 2. The SSSI name also describes an area of land (or sea) between two placenames. Please revert all such changes in Wales. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 09:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Llywelyn2000: I'm afraid that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Did I do that? I certainly cannot remember doing so or having anything to do with it. I did a Intersecting Contribs search and cannot find any place that you and I have both edited that's anything similar to what you're talking about. I'm sorry, but I'm just absolutely baffled. If I did do it, perhaps you could provide a diff or a link to refresh my memory. If I messed up somehow, I'll be happy to reconsider my actions, but I can't recall having a horse in this race. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi. When trying to Creating "Allt Pontfaen - Coed Gelli-fawr" (and similar) I get: 16:22, 3 June 2011 TransporterMan (talk | contribs) moved page Allt Pontfaen - Coed Gelli-fawr to Gellifawr (More accurate name) (revert). Worry not. If it wasn't the official name, then it would make sense to move to the English language part only. Have a great new year! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard: Kristi Lee

I blanked my user talk page as the discussion about that page does not belong on my talk page. It belongs on the talk page of the article. Secondly User:John from Idegon was the person who said to take it to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if I still disagreed with him as is noted here [8]. What do you advise? --SportsMaster (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I have returned to the talk page on there. --SportsMaster (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I advise that the two of you actually talk about this issue at the article talk page rather than engaging in a "Is. Is not." debate. Based on an analysis of Wikipedia's definitions and policies, why is the edit proper or not? If it's a question of reliable sourcing, why does or does not the source in question fall into the definition of a RS? And so on. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Brownies of Mediation

Thank you for your efforts to mediate matters between myself and Tony Ingram. I'm not a very patient person by default, and felt I'd done everything I could to explain the situation to Tony in a reasonable manner, but obviously I was unsuccessful. I hope you'll have better luck. DonIago (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thanks for the help at DRN. Its been a busy month so far :-) — Keithbob • Talk • 19:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Problems getting unacceptable

Hello! Please advise me what to do about things like this. I just can't stand it anymore and am considering to quit English WP alltogether. Specifcally I should note that you never miss an opportunity to highlight that someone is not a native speaker of English, which, frankly, borders on personal attack, where the never miss an opportunity part is so insulting and cruel and unfait that is makes me feel physically sick, and where the accusation of personal attack re: English is beyond my comprehension. It's been going on for a long time now, with that user. Would you please give me some constructive advice that might make me behave and/or feel better? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing has posted multiple copies of this message to a number of user talk pages. I have posted a reply on my talk page, and a comment at User talk:Mr. Stradivarius#Problems getting unacceptable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Serge, both Mr. Stradivarius and JamesBWatson have posted thorough answers on their respective talk pages and I'll defer to their advice to you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator

Hi T-Man, Would you be kind enough to fill in for me on the remaining 6-7days left in my DRN coordinator shift? I'm in dire need of a wikibreak. Thank you so much my friend. Best,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do. I feel your pain and hope this does not drive you away. You do great work even without the mop and we need you at DRN once you have some time off. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello

I guess the reqeust for the lion vs tiger consenses I asked of Keith, will be adressed to you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keithbob

So if you may:

Thanks: ^_^

Golden Prime (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I do not ordinarily become involved in shepherding articles where there are the kinds of issues which you describe on Keithbob's talk page. There is no process or facility at Wikipedia for simply saying that there are certain problems with an article and asking that they be corrected, except for asking for it on the article talk page and even then it may very well not happen. There's also no process for having a "guardian" or "supervisor" appointed to oversee discussion (though individual editors may volunteer to do that, of course. But also remember that the other editors in the dispute do not have to accept that process.) The way to fix such problems at Wikipedia is to try to fix them yourself and then negotiate when others object. That can take a lot of time, effort, and dedication. Pick one particular edit which you would like to see addressed and propose it exactly like you would think that it ought to be changed on the article talk page; if no one objects, try actually making the change and see if anyone reverts or objects then; if they do, then negotiate. If that falls through then try some form of dispute resolution. Once that's done with that one change, propose another, and so on. Trying to work though a list of multiple issues all at once is very difficult and trying to address general issues with an article, rather than specific proposed edits, is even harder. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

DRN

Hi, I just closed this request. I'm not really sure what I'm doing so I apologize if there's anything I missed or you need to re-open the case, I just figured the the noticeboard was quite busy and you seemed a bit swamped being the only active DRN volunteer. Cannolis (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, you got it just exactly right. I was in the process of getting ready to do exactly that when your edit appeared. Thanks for helping at DRN. There are a couple of other currently fairly active volunteers, MrScorch6200 and Mdann52, and there's another small group who drop by and lend a hand if things get really clogged up, but we can always use all the help we can get. If you've not done so already, be sure to add your name and as much information as you care to share at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Thank you for clearing up my misunderstandings about which noticeboards/procedures are appropriate for which sort of disputes. SPACKlick (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

"Request dispute resolution" button

FYI, when I click on the "Request dispute resolution" button at the top of DRN, I see a blank page here. I'm not sure if something broke, or it's on my end. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem on your end. When I click on the button or, indeed, on the link you just gave above it takes me directly to the right page. I didn't design that page but I believe there's quite a bit of scripting involved, so if you've got something (perhaps some security feature) which interferes with scripting then it may be blocking it. I thought you had listed manually, but it appears that you have got enough of the parts right that it won't interfere with our maintenance bot. I'll let it run once and then check it again. If there's a problem, I'll either relist it for you or let you know so you can try other things, but I don't think that there will be. (The manual listing that I did revert was clearly going to cause a problem.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'll play with it. Thanks for investigating. I'm still just seeing a blank, empty page which has nothing but a category on it. Oh well. If it's just me, then it's not a problem I guess. Thanks for the help :) — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

English Patient Problem

Could you please assist me so that I can lodge whatever is necessary to have Ring Cinema cited for article terrorism. She eslier today reverted all that I see that was in expressed in the article although she lodged the original cause for review and then refused to participate. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LimeyCinema1960 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Conduct issues may be reported at ANI or RFC/U. Be sure to point out that you have attempted to use content dispute resolution already, but that the other editor failed to participate. I'm not saying that I either agree or disagree that there's actually any conduct matter to report there, but am only informing you of where you can go if you feel like there is one. Likewise, I'm not saying that you do or do not have anything to fear by making such a report, but BOOMERANG is always possible when making a filing at ANI. - TransporterMan (TALK) 21:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Bisbee panorama 2009.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Admiral Clarey Bridge

Hey - looking for some help developing a bridge article. Would you be interested?--v/r - T P 03:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to, but the best I can say right now is maybe. I'm the coordinator over at DRN this and next month and have to focus my time there, but what do you have in mind? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Editor's edit warring

Dear TransporterMan,

User:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah appears to be edit warring, or at least engaging in disruptive behavior. This article (Haaretz) is subject to a 1RR rule. The editor has not cooperated in discussion. The editor has not made constructive comments in the talk page, and recently refused to participate in a dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Haaretz.

I also posted in the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#How_reliable_are_the_abstracts_of_journals_compared_to_the_actual_text_of_the_article.3F, and the consensus was that if we have a full article, we should cite a part of the article, not the abstract. The editor accused me of breaking 1RR on the edit but I did not revert any part of the edit that the editor had an issue with. I simply changed "concluded" to "stated." The editor reverted with an overly dramatic edit summary (without explaining why he/she was reverting this bold edit). After that, I found the conclusion in the article, and jst used the article's language. I kept the editor's choice of "concluded," and rephrased per the article's own words. I explained this in Talk:Haaretz. The user reverted without any explanation and accused me of violating 1RR. I quickly reverted because I did not want to engage in any war.

Do you have any advice? The user did not participate in dispute resolution. I am trying to come up with a suitable compromise per WP:RS and WP:QUOTE that uses the language of the article to avoid controversy, but this editor does not seem to budge. Best, --Precision123 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm not an administrator and cannot provide any direct help on conduct issues such as edit warring, disruptive behavior, and arbitration remedy violations except perhaps to point you towards the forums where those issues can be raised: AN, ANI, RFC/U, and RFAR. About which, if any, of those is most appropriate, I have no opinion, except to — just in general and wholly without implying any wrongdoing on your part — suggest that you need to take BOOMERANG into consideration. As for the rest, any time you cannot come to agreement on a point on the article talk page, the closest thing we have at Wikipedia to content arbitration is a request for comments; if enough editors support your position to form a consensus then your opponents cannot prevent its implementation by simply not participating. On the other hand, RFC's often fail due to lack of participation by outside editors or come to no consensus. Failing that then sometimes the only other option is to drop the stick. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

drn particiaption

Hi TransporterMan, I would prefer not to be included as a side in that discussion, since I am not familiar with its details (I haven't edited on that page, nor been part of their discussion). Those were quick observations/comments with the intent to try to make the discussion more productive by channeling it toward WP:RS, instead of what we think. Thanks. --PLNR (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll note that at the DRN discussion if it goes forward, but it's looking likely to be closed right now. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn request

Please ignore my previous message, I read one of your previous response and saw you cannot administer any content. Thank you! JMFustin

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.54.130.247 (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Hey TransporterMan! You helped me out with a dispute at the end of 2012. Although I was unsuccessful at the time, the disputed material is now included. Thanks for your help! :) HPotato (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Much thanks

		The Good Friend Award
		Many thanks for picking up my duties for a few days while I was on vacation. You are a true friend and an extraordinary Wikipedian! It's folks like you that make it all worthwhile :-) -- — *Keithbob* • Talk • 22:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I appreciate it very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Carrying the Day

Thank you very much for your work on the Six Flags DRN Case. This is my first case, and I very much doubt any positive proceedings without your help.

Sincerely, --Sjmoquin (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sjmoquin: You're very welcome and thanks for helping at DRN. Your help would be particularly appreciated right now, by the way, at the Third Opinion project, where there's quite a backlog. It's also a very good place to get your feet under you doing dispute resolution. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)