User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Archived material formatting

Is there a way to copy archived material with editable formatting intact, to allow it to be used in a block quote, with format fully intact? The last bit of the "GM Streetcar" is needed for a RSN request, and the current format, if copied, loses all its indents when blockquoted. This makes it rather difficult to see who said what. Anmccaff (talk) 05:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC):

Yes. Open the archive page for editing (you have to open the entire page, not just the section you're interested in), scroll down, highlight, and Ctrl-C (at least in Windows) copy the code and text for the section you want to use. Then click "Cancel" to avoid actually editing the page. Then paste it into the destination page, being sure to give a link to where it was copied from so as to avoid an internal-copyvio issue. Whenever I do something like that I use this code to put a red dotted-line indented box around it to make clear what's been copied:

{|style = "border:thin dashed red; margin:0 5% 0 5%"

|[paste copied material here]

|}

which gives this result:

[paste copied material here]

Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. If you get a chance, could you take a look at it, and see if it is in the right form for its purpose? [[1]]Anmccaff (talk) 06:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't look at the code, but the text on the RSN page looks fine, formatting-wise. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. My editing (in the strict non-Wiki sense, that is) needs all the help it can get, unfortunately. I think I have too many formats, going back to Wang Wordprocessor, fighting it out when I try to use a computer for anything beyond a glorified typewriter.Anmccaff (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My text formatting goes back to WordStar 3.0 and I still buy keyboards (which are becoming extremely hard to find) with the F-keys on the left similar to the old IBM XT keyboard so that I can still use my left-hand Ctrl-Fkey and Alt-Fkey combinations for quick formatting. I used standalone word processors prior to migrating to the computer, but I can't recall one which allowed for formatting without manually switching type balls or daisy wheels. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ten years ago June (I know this offhand, 'cause my son was in the 5th grade, and is now in 15th)I was in a small military museum on a school field trip, explaining to the kids what the antique historical artifacts in the case were. It was all stuff I had used or signed for on active duty. Felt like calling a taxidermist, getting in the case myself.Anmccaff (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, but that makes us the ones with the wisdom and sage advice. At least when we can remember the facts... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Almah again

I have submitted for a third party for almost the same issue you once had dealings with here. It is now happening again here. I am not sure you want involved again and will understand if you cannot. Basileias (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at the new article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

TransporterMan, your essay (which is indeed humourous) was spot-on regarding this situation; I had no idea that there had been a 3O request, but just happened to stumble in. I'm an old editor with a new account, and there wasn't near this level of editorial complexity present when I was editing a decade ago; it seems that as a result, I've found myself proverbially stumbling around more often than not these past few days. I'll learn. Thank you for the explanation, and for the delightful essay. Cheers. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

And thanks back to you for your kind words (and if you liked that humorous essay, you might also like the Wikiderata which I wrote). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Higgs Boson

Hi, You have removed my request for a third opinion regarding an addition to the Higgs Boson page, because there was no recent new discussion. But the wikipedia guidelines for dispute resolution require to wait one month before requesting a third opinion, and I have actually waited this time because of these guidelines... Isn't it contradictory to remove this request? Regards, Fred1810 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any such requirement. Could you give me a link to it? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I've seen that here WP:Dispute_resolution_requests/Guide (last item of the first section "Negociate on talk page").... Regards, Fred1810 (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That means a month of ongoing discussions, not that you have to wait a month after discussions have ended: "aren't going anywhere" (and it's also just an advice page, not a policy or guideline). Nonetheless, I'm going to restore your 3O request since it really wasn't horribly stale. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Fred1810 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Blanking of Request for mediation

May I request information why it seems to be the case that even the material requesting mediation on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, which so far as I know is not in fact part of mediation, and presumably is not constituted as a part of it, has apparently been blanked, or is it perhaps available on some other page? John Carter (talk) 17:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of both the request page and the talk page is customary in cases which go to ARBCOM. Even those cases which are refused by the Mediation Committee may be deleted if a related case goes to ARBCOM, but it is particularly true with cases which are accepted for mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Hello, I am wondering if you could help with an editing dispute at Mumia Abu-Jamal, or direct me to someone who could. I had made several edits to the lede to make it more closely adhere to Wiki's policies, but another editor has twice reverted my edits without legitimate discussion. I believe that the article's lede delves into far too many details, all of which are repeated in lower sections. A lede should contain a summary, in a short, declarative format, of things to come. I am requesting that you compare my version of the lede to its current version and determine which is more appropriate. Better yet, feel free to edit the lede as you see fit. Also, many of the links throughout the page do not work, so I am curious about what can be done to fix those. By the way, please do not read anything into my username, as I strive to be completely neutral. I have unsuccessfully tried to change the name. Thank you for your expected help.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Because of my involvement and commitment to neutral dispute resolution processes here, I generally do not become involved in resolving disputes between editors unless they come through one of those established processes (and I also generally do not edit articles on which I provide dispute resolution services).

I will make this comment, however: More talk page discussion and less editing in the article itself would go a long way to approaching a resolution on these matters. Disputes over large, multi-element edits are rarely resolved by trying to look at the whole thing at one time, but only get resolved by breaking them down into individual elements or pieces and discussing each element separately on the article talk page. Proposing drafts on the article talk page showing what you want to change and how you want to change it also helps to reduce confusion.

For an example of problems with the discussion so far, on the lede length issue I would note that DrKiernan has cited the guideline at WP:LEADLENGTH to which you responded, as you mentioned above, that a lede should be a short summary of the topic, with which LEADLENGTH agrees, but your response doesn't address the fact that while LEADLENGTH says that a short summary is needed it also says that a "short summary" may be three or four paragraphs long on an article of this length. Simply continuing to assert that a short summary is what's needed does not address what DrKiernan raised by bringing up LEADLENGTH. What could be raised to address it — and I'm not saying that this or the following argument is (or is not) a valid or applicable argument, but I'm just saying that they are the kind of arguments which might be raised — LEADLENGTH also says, "The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." If you feel the current lede is too long, then what specific parts are excessive and unnecessary to make the lede "useful and complete" and, most importantly, why and in what way are they excessive and unnecessary. Another argument might be that parts of the lede do not fairly summarize what's in the rest of the article, or summarize it in an unfair light, and that when fairly and properly summarized that the material is unnecessary and excessive, again carefully identifying the parts you're talking about and then carefully explaining why you feel that is the case.

As for the dead link issue, WP:DEADREF, to which DrKiernan has cited you, explains in a great deal of detail how to approach that issue. In short, it boils down to this: If a dead link is to an online copy of something originally published on paper and is sufficient for a reader to identify it and find it (for example, for a newspaper article, the date and the name of the newspaper where it was published), then the fact that it is no longer available online is unimportant and the proper response is simply to edit the link to remove the URL. That's because Wikipedia does not require online resources; paper-only resources are perfectly acceptable, so long as they are available somewhere (for example, through a trip to the public library in the city where the newspaper was published). If a dead link is to something which was only published online, then that citation can be removed (but you ought to always check the Internet Archive first to see if a stored copy is available; if so the link can be pointed to that copy).

I hope that this helps. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough response. I intend to use certain of your ideas.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to reason with user DrKiernan, but he/she refuses to be reasoned with and has again reverted my good faith edits. The lede is once again a mess and merely summarizes a few of the many article entries, obviously based on said editor's POV. Please advise me how to appeal the matter to a higher authority.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no "appeal" possible and there is no higher authority: There is no board, committee, or other authority at Wikipedia which has the right to make judgments or decisions over content (with a few exceptions generally involving legal matters such as copyright, child abuse, and libel). Content matters are always decided through consensus and application of policy and guidelines (which are the recorded consensus of the community). Dispute resolution processes are either for the purpose of assisting discussion between the parties through guidance by a neutral party or (in the case of request for comments) bringing in new eyes to the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

shorty Mack contact me pls

I'm shorty Mack and I wanna no why u have some problems in my wikia everything is Tru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.137 (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm afraid that I don't communicate by email with anyone who does not have a registered account and email address here at Wikipedia. I've removed your contact information for your protection. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hello there! Just a quick note. When you answer a case at DRN could you change to template at the top of the case from {{DRN case status}} to {{DRN case status open}} (with a | between status and open). I dont know if you just forget as was the case North Head,_New_Zealand#Volcano_and_reserve as it is so easy to do! All the best. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@TheMagikCow: I didn't change it because it was not yet open, nor had it been opened, and changing the status to open was improper. It was waiting for the other party to make a summary. Until that happens, a case should not ordinarily be opened for discussion. If the other party does not make a statement within a reasonable period of time — typically 3 days to a week, depending on the circumstances — then the case should ordinarily be closed as futile. I'll make an exception to that occasionally when there is an absolutely-clear, no-one-can-reasonably-disagree outcome and I'll simply offer an opinion and close the case without the other party weighing in, but that's pretty uncommon. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN auto archive

I need to reclaim my open case (forget to extend the archive date) How do I reclaim it? Change date? Cut and paste?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Cut and paste back to the main page, deleting it from the archive, and restoring the headers from the last version in the main page history before it was archived, being sure to advance the do not archive until date. I'd put it back in the position on the main page where it was before it was archived, if it were me, and I'd also notify all the parties on their talk pages in case one of them saw that it was gone and thought it was over and no longer has the DRN page watchlisted. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks bro. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Providence

Need a 30' pole... Jim1138 (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

• TransporterMan, I've opened this up and volunteered to be the mediator, but I can't seem to get the main chart to add that I've opened it and edited... can you help me with the techie stuff? I think the issue is well within my purview, but the formatting and such, not so much. Montanabw^(talk) 01:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure, but I'm going to ping Hasteur, who is our bot operator. I think that it may be a function of your having added yourself to the volunteer list only shortly before editing the case, but I'm not a coder and we'll probably need Hasteur's assistance to sort it out. Best regards, and thanks for helping at DRN, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw Your efforts did not show up on the Status template because the program depends on a very specific form for entering your user into the list. I have corrected the entry. Hasteur (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow. I would have never figured that one out. Thanks, Hasteur. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia collaboration at its best! Mucho gracias also! Montanabw^(talk) 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for help to settle an edit dispute

Hello again, I respectfully request that you help to resolve a dispute about the inclusion criteria for the article, Misconduct in the Philadelphia Police Department. I have already proposed numerous criteria, but another editor has criticized them as being arbitrary, which in theory you could argue that ANY criteria are. Said editor has threatened to delete all listed misconduct cases which do not already have their own separate article. Any suggestions about the issue, including arguments to retain all major misconduct cases already listed, will be greatly appreciated.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, because of my involvement and commitment to neutral dispute resolution processes here, I generally do not become involved in resolving disputes between editors unless they come through one of those established processes (and I also generally do not edit articles on which I provide dispute resolution services). The RFC pending there should be allowed to run its course, which is ordinarily 30 days, and if that does not resolve the dispute then consider one of the other processes listed at dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, but I was hoping that you could offer suggestions that would help retain the referenced article, just as you gave excellent advice regarding edits on the Mumia Abu-Jamal article. This will be my final request for assistance from you. Thanks, again.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry :'(

Well some person above messaged when I first edited it then it was removed and I was upset as hed said I used my opinion when I clearly didn't when Tiertex Design Studios are known for many bad things, and that's opinion apparently? Kay I'm verry sorry for that minor outburst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestillgamer57 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I was only correcting what was obviously a mistake. India has the second largest Shia population with 50 million people. You can check the census of India for further information. Also I added the sentiment of Shia muslims in Pakistan as it is a quite relevant detail for Shia Muslims who unjustly suffered in the hands of Pervez Musharraf and others antedating him. This would otherwise be unfair to the Shia columnists who want their view to be heard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raden1891 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For your awesome answer in Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Keep it Going!!! †ããrøn95® 13:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I truly appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit

Hi Bro, Just to ask you can you edit Gustave Klimt page in french l, bcz I have some problem on it.Thx

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're asking (and I don't speak French). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Socrates (Whalestate)

Hello, could you please provide the information as to what it is that are the two more preferable choices than to remove un-sourced material from an article, in the hierarchy of best-to-least Whalestate (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC) it would really help Whalestate (talk) 00:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have responded to this at Socrates talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Consensus policy

If you get a chance to reply at the Consensus policy talk page, that would be appreciated.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. If no one responds to my suggestion then I'll edit the policy accordingly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY

WP:BLPPRIMARY in fact the wording in this this is incorrect, because we use court reports and trial judgements for many of the people who committed genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes particularly over what happened in Bosnia in the 1990s.

This is essential because often the secondary sources are sloppy in reporting precisely what it was that these people were found guilty of, or newspapers report the initial court judgements, but because of some other more interesting stuff (the carnival has move on) in the news two years later, there is a failure in English language newspapers to report that the crime has be adjusted on appeal (for example from "genocide" "aiding and abetting genocide"). So not to update the article using a public record would be to leave inaccurate information in a biography of a living person. In my opinion it is far better to use an International Tribunal or an ICC press release in English than the same press release translated back from Croat (or whatever) and only available from a partisan blog site. A strict reading of "or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." in WP:BLPPRIMARY would prevent the use of an ICC press release in English, which is not what happens for criminal from failed states.

There is a lot more at about this in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35#Misuse of primary sources a section I started back in November 2012 -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, which is not to say that I agree with it (or that I don't, I'm not sure how I feel about it), but that discussion ended in no consensus and, thus, the wording of the policy stands and if it is being used as you say, those references should be removed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@PBS: Now I've thought about it further, I'd like to say two things:

• First, I should have said, above, that those references should be removed unless there is a local exception to use them there. I haven't looked, but I rather suspect that there is no such exception (I've never seen a "real" local exception in practice), but there's always that possibility.
• Second, if I'd participated in that RFC I would have been a definite "oppose" on making an exception to court records and other public documents. Though I agree with most of the reasons expressed by the opposers in that discussion, there's another: Public documents, including especially court records but not only court records, generally require expert interpretation in order to insure that they're not misunderstood or misused. With court records that's particularly acute because both the significance and scope of court records are very often things which only a legal expert — and I may be biased here, since I'm a lawyer — can properly understand and which legal experts may well disagree upon. I think that's true in sourcing generally, but can be handled on a case-by-case basis on non-BLP situations, but when dealing with BLP's the presumption needs to run the other way. At least that's my feeling on short consideration. If it comes up again there, perhaps I'll think it through more carefully and join in.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually the better solution is WP:IAR as otherwise the biographies can have inaccuracies which is precisely what the BLP policy is meant to avoid. -- PBS (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your tireless efforts at DRN and MedCom. I think the place would fall apart without you as the pillar of commitment and service at both locations. — Keithbob • Talk • 18:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. That's high praise coming from someone with your level of commitment and I truly appreciate it. Best regards and thanks again, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I'm so glad that when I up and left (mainly due to Wikimedia Australia to be honest) you've held the fort and excelled. There will be a day I am back, but you're the real guru of dispute resolution now :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's wonderful praise coming from the once-and-future (I hope) DR czar. Hope you're doing well, my friend. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you know, work is hectic (got two promotions in the space of 9 months) and WMAU consumes the rest of the free time I have. I'll probably not seek re-election when my term ends this year - I've been on the board for nearly three years and was a Wikimedia Fellow before that, will be nice to be just a normal editor again :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

DRN question

Just was wondering (because I've only done one case so far) if I can just dive in on an open DRN or if we need to wait for you to do your thing and officially declare it open for DR? I see one open case there that I could help on, but didn't want to jump the gun if it's not certified for the process. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Once all parties have been notified and have given a summary (at least all the major listed participants; we can sometimes proceed without some very minor players if their absence won't endanger any resolution which we can work out), and we're sure there's been adequate discussion at the article talk page (or user talk pages or non-DR noticeboards, we're not actually very picky where it happens so long as it does) feel free to jump right in. Any volunteer can open the case once it's ripe in that way. Thanks very much for volunteering to help. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan/WP3O/Nonconsensus3O

I was recently watching the discussion at the WP:3O talk page. I found your essay on the topic very interesting. I was previously aware that third opinions were not meant as tiebreakers, but I think it would be beneficial to include a link to that essay on the Wikipedia:Third opinion page. Perhaps a move to the Wikipedia namespace, and a link on the third opinion page to it would be appropriate.
Just wanted to run this by you, and see what you thought about it. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to it being moved, but I am a little concerned about adding much more to the 3O page. We have a bit of a problem with people jumping in to help without thoroughly reading the instructions as it is and the longer and denser we make those instructions, the more disincentive it's going to provide. Why don't you propose this over at the 3O talk page and we can see what the 3O community thinks about it? Feel free to link to this discussion and to my consent to having the page moved into the WP namespace (but let's not do either unless the 3O community supports it). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I may bring it up on the 3O talk page at some point. Just wanted to make sure the idea was alright with you first, since it's your essay. You make a good point about the length of the page, I'll take that into consideration before I make a decision whether or not to propose the addition. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 13:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

MedCom chair eh?

La di dah. Very nice :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:08, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve. I appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You've earned it :) How are you - how have things been (I'm on Google chat if this isnt a good place) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Steve, I didn't see this until just now (saw your last post above and missed this one; senior moment). I've been fine and healthy, as is my family. I'd look forward to chatting one of these days soon, but I'm pretty busy in RL for the next week or two at least. Email me when you have a moment and we'll set something up. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

not understanding why I was told my gun purchases was denied

I DONT NOT UNDERSTAND WHY MY GUN PURCHASE WAS DENIED.... I AHVE EVER HAD A GUN IN MY NAME THAT THE SYSTEM DIDNT ALLOW ,E TO GET THIS IS NOT MY FRST GLOCK 40 CAL. WHAT CAAUSES THISOverton256 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)BCO

I have no idea what you're talking about or why you've put this on my talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You have mail

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Rider ranger47 ^Talk 19:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Church of Wells location

Church of Wells is located in Wells, TX. Members own multiple residential properties and the sawmill in Alto. They haven't moved. Don't appear to be planning to.

It would be interesting to know if there's a Nacogdoches 'franchise' or base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skjoldur (talk • contribs) 23:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the Nacogdoches information as being unsourced and apparently unverifiable. I've also commented on the article talk page about the information you posted there. Thanks for the help and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Vandalizing of pages

Hello TM

A user, name Krakkos, deleting all refs and trying to change history, probably because of his nationalistic ideas.

Pannonian Avars and Avar Khaganate pages vandalized by him and I changed those pages to original version. I don't want to involve in an edit war. Is there any way to protect those pages from vandalizing? Sorry, I'm not very good on Wiki things and don't know how to keep pages safe without entering an edit war.

Regards. BöriShad (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The first way to resolve any dispute on Wikipedia is to thoroughly discuss it on the article talk page. If you get reverted, please try that first. And, by the way, "vandalism" has a very specific meaning here, using it inappropriately can get you in trouble, and what happened on those pages isn't vandalism. Indeed, Krakkos claims to be removing material added as block evasion by a blocked editor, a claim to which I am willing to (and you should) assume good faith. Material inserted as block evasion can be removed without regard to how "good" it is so as to enforce the block. If you are not a sockpuppet of the blocked editor — and that's not an accusation, I'm just stating the rule — you're free to add it back in so long as the material generally fulfills Wikipedia's standards. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But those kind of people keep changing pages even if they read to talk page, no? Btw, sorry for the wrong word -Vandalism-. Also I'm not very active on this site, but reading it all the time. Tbh, I'm not trying to be part of this site but trying to help as much as I can and keep pages clean, at least the pages I have info. Wiki pages mostly damaging by nationalist people I think, that's why I'm usually avoiding to read history pages properly. Anyway, thanks for your time. Regards. BöriShad (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The pages just corrected early today, edited again to something BS. And I'm done with editing. Is there any way to remove my account? Because there isn't any point to be a member of this site. People who have friends and/or power will always put the final dot. Anyway, I'm gonna check my account for a few more days, in case if you send a reply or PM. Again, I'd be so glad if you remove my account. I believe you can see my mail address. so feel free to send me mail if I don't answer from here. Regards, BöriShad (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't do any of those things. You can remove your email address merely by deleting it from your preferences settings. See WP:VANISH for instructions on how to remove your account altogether. I wholly disagree with your assessment above about Wikipedia: friends or power count for very little here, consensus does but I will acknowledge that it is difficult to deal with editing if you are only a casual or intermittent editor. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Economic History of Chile

It appears that User:L235 is not likely to be able to mediate the case effectively for a few days, and it looks like the case needs to move forward so that the parties don't think that they have to go back to edit-warring. I see that User:Kharkiv07 has offered to take up the case. I suggest that you ask him or her to move forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and take it under advisement, but I have to say that if the edit warring has stopped that perhaps the best thing that could happen is a longish break for tempers to cool while waiting for a volunteer. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't be able to mediate, sorry --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

North Yemen Vandalism Issue

You will notice that I had once before closed the same case with a similar comment, so it is clear that the filing party was determined not to take advice. I am particularly annoyed by editors who get an edit reverted and call the revert "vandalism". My own opinion is that if you have been editing long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. In this case, there is behavioral reason to think that the filing party did know what is not vandalism, and was using the word "vandalism" in order to "win" the content dispute. After all, he or she didn't take my previous advice to file at WP:ANI. There is a particular class of combative POV editor who always labels the reverting of their edits as vandalism. (Sometimes they actually do think that the other editor is malicious.) The loose claim of vandalism just really annoys me, because it is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

In any case, thank you for the second opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We're not conduct cops at DRN, we're peacemakers, and the less we get involved in conduct issues and admonitions, the less we get drawn into matters which have the potential of besmirching our neutrality. While I certainly agree with your assessment and feelings about misuse of the term vandalism, the use of the term in that case was pretty incidental to the real content point of the case and by bringing it up in your close it makes you look partisan which is, arguably, just how the filing editor took it. You got the content part right and I just wanted to explain what you said about the close-and-refer-to-RFC a bit better, but I think that it would have been better for you to have just passed over the vandalism point without mentioning it or, at most, to have taken it to a note on the IP editor's talk page rather than speaking to it while wearing your DRN-volunteer hat. I don't mean this as a slam, Robert, but as genuine advice: If you want to get involved with conduct matters, and feel so strongly about them that they are constantly at the front of your mind, you might be better suited to work as a volunteer at the conduct-DR forums or, even better, to try to become an administrator. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC) PS: Since I'm ragging on you a bit here, Robert , let me note that I think this was too strongly worded. Something more like, "It would be best if you stop editing the article," would have been more appropriate. As the Control of Mediation Policy says, "A mediator may not, however, impose any restrictions on any participant's actions at any other place within Wikipedia, including the place at which the dispute being mediated was taking place." — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice heeded. I have no intention of going through Requests for Administratorship. I will try to use gentler words. I probably won't remember with regard to playing the V card, but I think that I will about advice to stop editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical knowledge

You mentioned "... creates a need for technical knowledge about the inner workings of this board that we simply cannot rely on all volunteers having" Is this coding?

I am curious because I am interested in improving the training of moderators.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The DRN community has never, at least so far, been willing to impose training (or, in my opinion more important, experience) requirements on volunteers. Anyone who can edit Wikipedia can be a volunteer at DRN, even if their "taking" of a case is their very first Wikipedia edit. Those of us with some experience there try to keep an eye on what new volunteers are doing, but since volunteers also have a wide discretion in how to handle cases most of us are loath to jump in and interfere with a volunteers' case unless they're virtually certainly messing up in a very substantial way. Let me note, just in passing, that since Third Opinions are non-binding that 3O provides a great place to develop one's skills in DR and to become sufficiently familiar with WP policy and procedures to move on to DRN or MEDCOM, and we've suggested to several struggling newcomer DRN volunteers that it would be best if they go sharpen their skills there. The flip side is that we never have a surfeit of volunteers at DRN and for entirely practical reasons we hate to run anyone off. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

30 versus mediation committee

Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Another Tagging Dispute

DRN is a more formal process than 30. Mediation committee allows participants to disengage, but DRN is a first step of resolution, and is a point or venue which would record a sincere act of discussion. To say that someone could be allowed to disengage from the DRN would mean that the only possible venue an editor could go to for intractable issues would be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.96.52.0.249 (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, in that I agree that any editor should be allowed to disengage from DRN. DRN is not mandatory. An issue at DRN that is not resolved may go forward for content as a Request for Comments, which is binding, as well as the option of going forward to WP:AN or WP:ANI for conduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, 96.52, but it might help if I note that while the natural progression is 30-DRN-Formal Mediation-RFC, that there's nothing which requires that order and all of those venues allow you to skip over the "lower" ones and start there. There is, in theory, no progression from any of those to a conduct venue such as AN, ANI, or ARBCOM and none of those conduct venues has any right whatsoever to decide or rule on content. Conduct and content dispute resolution here at WP are wholly separate "tracks." While a lot of content disputes may be settled at one of the conduct venues in a practical manner by editors being blocked or banned, there are certainly a lot of disputes in which there is no conduct dispute serious enough to warrant any such action. On the content side, the thing that people forget is that "no consensus and therefore no action" is a perfectly acceptable result under Wiki-philosophy and, therefore, not all disputes have to be resolved. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And I might add that I agree with Robert in what he says above, and would note that a dispute can also move on to Formal Mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with both you and User:Robert McClenon, per the lede in WP:CONSENSUS: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.".96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: I've never heard of anything binding, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, except maybe for sanctions.96.52.0.249 (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

June-July DRN coord

Hello sir :) Do you mind if I take the upcoming DRN coordinator post? :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And, uh, I couldn't help but notice that this RFM has everyone agreeing. I wonder if the Mediation Committee might let me tackle this one? (though I understand 1. Someone probably already has dibs on the case, 2. I'm not on MedCom and thus for a non-member to mediate both the Mediation Committee and the parties would need to agree and 3. I've been away for some time so there might be concerns about me being incapable or dropping away). I understand points 1 and 2, but can assure you 3 isn't an issue. Would you mind bringing up the idea (if the answer is no, I won't be offended, and don't expect any special favours.) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC) odd, but I don't mind proposing it.

You're welcome to the DRN coordinator position; just go ahead and replace my name on the coordinator page and the current coordinator transclusion page. About MEDCOM, Keithbob is interested in taking on another MEDCOM case because his current case is on hold, so he kind of has first dibs on this one. If he doesn't want it, I'll ask the Committee about you taking it. Since you're not a current candidate for membership, that would be kind of odd, but I don't mind proposing it knowing your skills. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll add myself to the coord spot. I think that (MedCom) is completely reasonable, I'm not a current member and I wouldn't be offended if MedCom didn't think a non-member should mediate. My interest is more due to the cases at MedCom being more "meaty" but as you say, Keith has first dibs - let me know how it goes. Hope all is well :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Etiquette question re:DRN

Hi, TM - I volunteered for DRN and TO but I was hoping you could answer a few questions regarding DRN.

1. When a volunteer takes a case, can other volunteers also comment on that case or would it be considered an imposition of the volunteer who took the case?
2. Is there a guideline I can refer to regarding volunteer interaction or do we simply employ wiki-etiquette and general courtesy or does any of the aforementioned even matter?

Thank you in advance. Atsme ^{☎️ 📧} 12:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

First, Thanks for volunteering to help. As for your questions: Other volunteers can participate, but generally do not as a matter of courtesy. You never know what the method in the primary volunteer's madness, so to speak, might be and by stepping in either to help or to criticize you may be walking on his or her plan to handle the case. The DRN Coordinator has more of a right/obligation to step in if things are going very badly, but even then ought to be handled with the utmost reserve and discretion. When in doubt, sending an email to the primary volunteer before jumping in (or to talk things over with someone who has jumped in on your case) is never a bad idea. But at the end of the day anyone, including other volunteers and even just stray editors passing through, have the right to participate; if it's not clear why they're there, the primary volunteer can always ask them to clarify their intent and role and either add them to the party list, if they're partisan, or ask them — though you can't insist — to sign up on the volunteer list if they're trying to act as a neutral. The ultimate weapon in the primary volunteer's arsenal is to simply withdraw, or threaten to withdraw, from the case and leave it to the interloper. The answer to your second question is "no," though there might be a word or two buried somewhere in the FAQ or the volunteer page that I don't recall. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Tman and Atsme, Sorry for coming into this conversation uninvited but there is a section in the DRN guidelines called "Joining a Case Already in Progress".[2] I thought it might be a useful reference for your conversation. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the third opinion

Thank you for taking the time and offering your insight on Thomas More Law Center. Your volunteer efforts are appreciated! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, I appreciate it very much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

U.S. Grant mediation

Hi, TransporterMan, on what basis did you add me as an involved party in the dispute? I assume because of my attempt to give context to the dispute. If so, I will strike it, because I have no desire to litigate with Gwillhickers.

Please see here for some history if you're interested; just do a page search for my name. YoPienso (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion on the article talk page, which makes you a proper party for the mediation. If you do not wish to participate, just decline the mediation in the proper section on the request page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your role in the mediation? Seems odd you acted like a mediator/admin/big cheese and then vamoosed. YoPienso (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm the current Chairperson of the Mediation Committee and do mainly administrative tasks for the committee, such as overseeing requests for mediation, elections to the committee, and interfacing on behalf of the committee with other Wikipedia bodies such as the Arbitration Committee. I don't have much of a role in a mediation once it has been accepted for mediation and a member of the committee agrees to act as mediator (unless the mediator needs to be replaced for good cause and the party requesting the change would prefer to go through the Chairman rather than directly to the committee as a whole). Until the case has been accepted by a mediator, however, I'm in charge of it and part of that duty is to see that all parties who might have an interest in the outcome of the case are given an opportunity to participate in it if it is accepted. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind and informative response. Cheers! YoPienso (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Unseen character DRN thread

Hey there,

Was wondering if you would mind giving your 2c on the above DRN thread - I feel the involved parties have made their perspectives clear and I've weighed in, but would appreciate another pair of eyes on it to ensure I don't have blinders or if there's something I've missed.

Cheers,

Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

If I may butt in, FWIW Steve, at a cursory glance (read the DRN filing but didn't follow the links) everything looks reasonable to me and boils down to "Sources support the inclusion of Rosaline as an unseen character, while the criteria currently(?) listed at the article are themselves unsupported by sources".

I might suggest noting that if the feeling is that Rosaline should still be excluded from the article even though sources appear to support her inclusion, then that should be initiated as a separate issue. DonIago (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

You've both got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, spotted, will look more tomorrow (for the fourth day in a row, I've failed to go to bed before midnight. But tomorrow (well, today, now!) is Saturday and I'm sleeping in :P Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN case status thread

Oi...are you ignoring me? :P Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ;) (no, i'm not stalking your edits, I just happened to check my watchlist one minute after you made the edit). Also, I'm in the news :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replied there, q.v.. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Re news: cool! You ought to bring that article to the attention of the folks over at the Signpost. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Bangalore to be renamed to Bengaluru

Hi TransporterMan,

I would like to bring to your notice that I am the new user of Wikipedia. As you have mentioned that only one talk as happened regarding this. Kindly go through the entire talk page of Bangalore where few users have already tried to each consensus and have not reached any conclusion, other than status quo. I request for your help and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

We'll allow the DRN coordinator to make the decision. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have raised the RM in Bangalore talk page. I have also suggested an workaround for the issue, where I hope that no one would object any more. Intention is not to remove Bangalore wiki page but to introduce new Bengaluru wiki page itself. As you are the expert wiki contributor, I request for your help and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the "workaround", which the editor has been advised against, was to do a copy-and-paste of the existing article to a new article. I think that the basic issue is that the editor doesn't understand redirects. I think that the editor may have decided that the "workaround" isn't necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghouta chemical attack

What I previously mentioned regarding the RFM from a few weeks ago applies to this one - if no one comes forward to mediate I'd be willing, unless the Committee objects (which as always I would understand). Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we've already got two member volunteers for that one, so let's hang loose and see what happens. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. How about you let me know if there's a case no one's interested in that's accepted, so I don't come here harassing you every time I see a new accepted RFM. heheh. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Steve, I'm wearing my official MedCom chairperson's hat for purposes of this response. We've been in discussion on the MedCom mailing list about your offer to take on a case as a guest mediator. The consensus of that discussion is that the Committee would be open to you doing a guest mediation or two, but would like to wait for a few months until you have demonstrated at DRN and perhaps other venues that you're really and fully "back" and are actively editing on a continuing basis. Why don't you check back with me, or whoever is the MedCom chairperson at the time, after a couple or three months and ask them to re-propose the idea on the mailing list? For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC) (Chairperson)

That's only reasonable, I wouldn't expect any less. Thanks for bringing it up there. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 21:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)