User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Jeffrey Lang

I declined the speedy A7, for it unmistakable asserts importance as a mathematician and a writer. Asserting that someone has written books (other than self-published or vanity press books) is a credible assertion of importance, though it does not necessarily prove it--it depends on the books. Asserting one is a professor at a major university is similarly at least asserting importance, thoug h it does not necessarily prove it--it depends on the criteria at WP:PROF.

The article was nominated for deletion previously and deleted; but I have checked and it is not a simple recreation but a considerable expansion that appears might answer the reasons for deletion previously given, and so does not qualify for speedy deletion under criterion G4. If you think it does not sufficiently answer them, the way to test it is of course a second AfD. Personally, I think he is notable, and will so argue there, but perhaps the community will agree with me or perhaps not. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to AfD it and in saying, "Asserting that someone has written books (other than self-published or vanity press books) is a credible assertion of importance", you read my mind almost verbatim in regard to the question I was debating whether to ask you or ask on the CSD talk page. Thank you for that. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I understand that you have taken the position that even a single non–self–published book is enough to avoid an A7 speedy. Is the same logic true for a single credited role in a general–release movie or TV show for an actor or a single credited participation on a label–released recording for a musician? I'm not trying to argue, just to understand. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

the analog is to having written part of a collaborative work. I think it depends on some indication of the extent of the contribution & the importance of the work. For movies, I do not count one or two appearances in the "additional Performers" part of IMdB as a credible claim to significance, unless it is a famous film. I avoid judging popular music unless it is totally obvious even to the ignorant. Back in the world I know, I do not regard a claim to having written a single peer-reviewed paper as credible importance. (The essential standard is, that if the subject were a reasonable person and understood Wikipedia, would he think it plausible or ridiculous to have a Wikipedia page) In practice, borderline cases should be prodded; this deals with about 1/2 of them. If accompanied by a really polite & sympathetic note to the author about the inadvisability of removing the prod if it will not meet our standards, it can be 3/4. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent analysis, as always. Do you apply the collaboration consideration to film directors, too? Many thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Perspeculum's talk page.
Message added 13:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for 3O on Vuia

Thank you for offering a 3rd opinion about use of the word "unassisted" in the Traia Vuia article. DonFB (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for 3O on Trojan Horse

Face-smile.svg Thank you for offering a 3rd opinion about the references of "Mykonos vase". --Perhelion (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Carnivale De Robotique

Hello TransporterMan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Carnivale De Robotique, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Being created by two people notable enough for articles is enough for A7. PROD or take to WP:AFD if required. . Thank you. GedUK  10:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Has that rationale been established somewhere through a consensus discussion, or is it your personal standard? I'm not challenging you, just curious and trying to learn more about this, having had my hat handed to me on this subject in my recent failed RfA. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That's mine really, though I've seen others use it too. Notability isn't inherited (and that would count in this case), but CSD is a lower threshold. A7 is very wide, and equally very tight! It's a minefield at RfA really; what's an indication for one admin, isn't for another. Sorry I can't be more help! GedUK  19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


Hope it's somewhere fun...bon voyage! --RegentsPark (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Baptism and Immersion Baptism

I think your warning against edit warring should be put into effect for these two articles. (I hope the previous entry just above this doesn't mean that you will not be able to attend to this request.) Esoglou (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but it did mean that. Hope things are working better now. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Making fun of..

Is there a way that you can get rid of someone who is making fun of me? This person has posted on my page twice now. Calling my user page snobby. -- Lady Meg (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the two IP edits in the Especally welcome section? I can't do anything, I'm not a sysop, but you can request that your talk page be semi-protected at WP:RPP which will prevent IP editors from editing it. I think that such a request is, however, unlikely to be granted at this point, since WP:UPROT says, "User talk pages are rarely protected, and are semi-protected for short durations only in the most severe cases of vandalism from IP users." If it continues, however, make the request and even if it is denied you'll have a record to use if it continues after that. With this kind of thing, my personal philosophy is to just grit one's teeth and bear it without responding or taking further action as to do so is to just egg them on. This kind of miscreant typically has a short attention span unless you do something to keep his or her attention. Sorry I can't do more. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Eh, thanks for trying to help. Right.. I think I'll just leave it alone. Just thought it was rude.. not sure how my page is uh snobby. Perhaps I should take some of it down. I don't need others doing this. I'm just proud of my ancestors, ya know.. like you were saying.. well thanks again. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


Duly noted, thank you for telling me, I'm still getting a hang of this whole 3O thing. :) --hkr (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Duke of Cambridge

Until something is officially put out by Buckingham Palace, etc. I took this edit down that some person put up obviously after reading the magazine US. That is the only place I can find it. I do not think it proper to predict something on wiki especially when there is NO official legitimate source! They stated that Prince William and Kate Middleton will become Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. As I don't know how to link the certain revision I can only link you to the page: Duke of Cambridge; the revision was made by an IP address: -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

First, a mechanical tip: To identify a particular edit, find it in the page history and get it up on your screen so that it looks like this, with the edit you're interested in identifying in the right-hand column. Copy the url from your browser's url bar and put the link into your message, using the following format:
  • [ your text], which gives this result: your text
You can put anything you like in place of "your text" (or omit it altogether, which I don't recommend, as it creates an ambiguity).
You can also insert a link with {{diff2|394954109|your text}}, which gives this result: your text (note that there's no external link symbol) but figuring out which number to extract from the URL in all possible cases to insert in that format can be a little tricky. Here's how it works, again starting with the edit that you're trying to identify in the right-hand column, part of the URL will always be "diff=<something>":
  • If <something> is a number, use that number
  • If <something> is "prev", use the number that follows "oldid="
  • If <something> is "next", click the "next edit" link in the right-hand column (which will put the edit in which you're interested into the left-hand column) and use the number that follows "oldid="
Now about your edit, itself:
  • Since it was an unsourced edit, it was subject to being removed whether it is true or false. (The "best practice" is to, first, try to find a reliable source for it and, if none can be found, to tag it with an inline {{Citation needed}} tag, then come back a couple of weeks later and delete it if no source has been provided. However, the burden of proof is on the editor who introduces the assertion to source it at the time it is added and therefore any editor has the right to choose to not follow the best practice and just go ahead and delete it on sight.)
  • Take a look at WP:CRYSTAL — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can look at the IP editor's edit in two ways: First, it was about a current event, i.e. something that bookmakers are doing right now. My opinion is that even if that bookmaker action can be established through reliable sources, it's not notable. Second, it was a mere speculation about a future event, which clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL. Either way it doesn't belong here.
So I think that you were right. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Transporter! Now I just have to remember all this.. guess I will put it in a note and save it for future edits, etc. The only source for that rubbish was a gossip magazine and it has been all over the net now.. a source from the Palace has confirmed nothing is true and it's all due to an author's new publication of a book about the royals. Merely a prediction and that was the first time I have ever heard it... from an American magazine! Thanks again. -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
FYI the IP address was from LA, California where most of this gossip originates! -- Lady Meg (talk) 03:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2010 NPP

Thanks for your 3O on the above. I particularly like how you described the 'value' to be ascribed to same. Much appreciated, --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

sincerely Thank you...

Dear TransporterMan, I wanted to express my enormous gratitude for removing speedy deletion nomination for FlexiScore... I will absolutely agree with you that the term is neologism. You are 100% right - it is! But does it make the term wrong, spam? Nothing upset more then the fact that some users believe Flexibility Score terminology is spam - I hate spam!!! Please understand - over 3 years of my life were spent to create, modify, adjust ways to measure and calculate body flexibility score. I would kindly ask all the users not happy with flexiscore definition to search the web for any bits or pieces of additional, valuable information on how to calculate body flexibility score - it is impossible to achieve any reliable results, and that's why pages created around FlexiScore seem like the only ones... To the users who are against FlexiScore term, I would ask with all kindness: please allow some time for this neologism to live in Wikipedia, let's all edit this definition to match your individual standards and the Wikipedia requirements. TransporterMan - Thank you, sincerely Thank you... Ednoror (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

-- I strongly believe a newly edited version of FlexiScore definition does not infringe Wikipedia's guidelines. I redefined it as a product in Exercise equipment category. Please review and advise further.Ednoror (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the suggestions I left on your talk page? Frankly, your recent edits have probably decreased the probability that your article will survive by making it spammy in addition to the problems already being discussed in the AfD deletion discussion under way about your article. In order to get your article to survive you must add references in which the term is discussed in a non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources (and not just the repetition of press releases or product announcements). Reliable sources are sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals or major newspapers or magazines; online blogs, discussion groups or boards, and the like are not reliable sources. (Again, this is just a summary, see Identifying Reliable Sources for full detail.) If reliable sourced references do not exist, then the subject of your article is not notable and will probably be deleted. If you are going to add sources, you need to do so quickly, as the deletion discussion is scheduled to end at 16:02 UTC on November 24 and, if the discussion continues as it has so far, the article will probably be deleted shortly after that time unless you have added those references by then. Also please understand that I will not be the one to make the decision as to whether or not it will be deleted. That decision will be made by a Wikipedia administrator after the end of the deletion discussion. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


I found a lot more sources for dudesnude based on the links to find sources on the AfD itself! And a few others on my own. I even found an article about it in Spanish. Is this enough? What would you recommend if I want to save the article?Hemanetwork (talk) 12:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away from the computer for a few days, but I see that the AfD closed with a "keep." Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Mendaliv's talk page.
Message added 19:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greater Boston

Thanks for the attentive correction on the Greater Boston (news show) entry. My intent certainly wasn't "spammy" but I can see how it came off that way. In any event, I'll be more attentive to this in the future. Best regards Contextmatters (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sierra San Luis

Howdy. you probably noticed the map I was using for Sonora, and the mountain range Sierra San Luis, only positioned the Pushpin. It was not the coordinates for the mountain range. (and you obviously removed the map...)

At Talk:Four Corners Monument, you'll see a discussion and a map fix for the .svg map usage for the Geobox... User:Ruhrfisch fixed the first one for Ariz. Template:Geobox locator Arizona svg was made by Ruhrfisch. After talking to him, I since have done NMex, Nev, Calif, UT, Colorado, (and tried Texas, but only tried one set-up). The others are all good Pushpin location placements, for the Geobox usage.. I tried doing the Sonora Map, (kindof), but couldn't find any easy source material for the Top, Bottom, East, West coordinates.. Care to help with a map for Sonora, Chihuahua, and Baja California, and B. Calif. Sur..?.. or do you know who could easily make some good map fixes, (for Geobox, svg map). The Sonora map was a fairly nice looking map. .. Thanks.. -(from HOT desertSonoran Desert, ARIZ,USA)--Mmcannis (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how map dots work is currently a matter beyond my ken. I may take the time one day to figure it out, but my geographical efforts on WP right now are limited to finding where things exist and putting in correct coords. (I didn't, by the way, entirely remove the code for the map at Sierra San Luis, I just commented it out until someone who knows what they're doing can fix it.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply

Sorry to harass, and thanks. I'm satisfied with your input and guidance. For the moment, I'll leave the article while I explore other options. If only I had gone to you in the first place! -Danjel (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the Talk:Newcastle High School (Australia)#Motto discussion...

... which is on my watchlist for reasons I can't fathom... do the words "a frolic of his own" immediately bring back memories of undergrad Torts to an American United States of American lawyer? --Shirt58 (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to go back to my torts class in those now–fabled days of yore, I've had to deal with that concept much more recently, unfortunately. Best regards, and Merry Christmas, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Ouch. Employment law when it goes to court, is always ends up ugly - in the end, no-one wins, not even the lawyers. Guess that pretty much answers my question about "master and servant law" in the Land of the Free, colleague. And a G-d bless Us, Every One to you and yours for the holidays.--Shirt58 (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope this isn't fattening

! I thank you for all the effort in your response. A couple of brief comments. First, as I said before, it appears that the majority of cites on the gambling pages are invalid. And, most of the people with pages associated with gambling clearly should not have pages. I realize this is not a reason for keeping another page, even if that page is about a person with a stellar reputation in the field. But, it is bothersome nonetheless. Secondly, as I understand it, my books are a valid source for citations as they were edited by Don Schlesinger who has an established reputation for fact checking. In fact, he has fact checked most of the good Blackjack books and probably hundreds of published articles by other authors in gambling related and financial-related fields, precisely because that is his reputation. Unfortunately, someone claiming to be me deleted three year old, valid citations on hole carding first under a now banned username, and now as an IP. regards, Objective3000 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

2010 Nobel Peace Prize

Happy New Year, TM! There is a question at the above I would appreciate your views on. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Sorry TransporterMan...I actually agree with you...the only problem is, what do I do now? Kingston Heath Reserve is in Cheltenham Kingston Heath Golf Club is in Heatherton but...the Kingston Centre is well uknown :S With the Kingston Centre, I followed up with it's on web page [1]

The council's web page Yellow Pages as well as Melway (Melbourne's maps book) Everything there is pointing to it being in Cheltenham...I dont get why we are still split on this.

I'll be back in about 10 I won't be ble to answer questions :S Thankyou for your help. MelbourneStar1 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BAM History

Continuing from here, what I've gleamed from this is that the Barnes and Noble page needs some serious trimwork, since the majority of the information seems to come from the official company history as published on its own website. Sources from and constitute something like 6 of the listed sources. Is this an appropriate viewpoint to take away from our conversation on the reliable soruces noticeboard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eikou (talkcontribs) 15:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually looked at the B&N article, but your theory seems to be apropos. Go for it! Do, however, take a look at the policies that I put on your user talk page first, especially the WP:SELFPUB part of the verifiability policy. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I saw the article just now and found it incredibly helpful. All I had read until now is the reliability, verifiability, and notability articles, and them just in skimming. The additional information is a great help in easing the frustration of trying to meet the community's standards. Thank you for what seems like a considerable amount of time spent helping me learn the system. Eikou (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Flag of Tibet

I noticed you removed the 3O tag, however the editor that addressed the issue has stated he is not finished-is it okay to leave it up until he does?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The tag is usually taken down when the 3O Wikipedian who has "taken" the dispute removes it from the active-dispute list at the WP:3O page, so that other potential opinion-givers won't see it at the list of tagged talk pages and think that it's someone who wants an opinion but hasn't figured out that they also have to list it on the 3O page. But it's no big deal: if you think that there's some benefit for it being left up, feel free to replace it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 23:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, okay, is there something better I can do? Ask someone for a protection extension until the editor has made their fix, or something?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
If it were me, I'd just express my concern to both the reviewing 3O Wikipedian, RegentsPark a/k/a rgpk, and to the protecting sysop, Ged_UK, through a note on their talk pages. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Contact fuse

I'm going to be honest and say I've not taken kindly to your comments there. I do not think some sort of generic EW warning was appropiate - it makes me wonder if you'd even read the discussion on the talk page. I had no idea of what I was getting myself into the first time I made the change. The second time may have been slightly ill advised but I started discussing it on the talk page and even said "If this RM is successful I won't oppose changing it back" which to me is a willingness to discuss and not edit war - I even said once they reverted again "Not that I'm going to edit war over it now" making it perfectly clear a) that I knew the policy on edit wars and b) that I had no intention to do so. The revert after the RM closed was a good faith revert as I honestly thought that this would now be uncontroversial as even if people disagreed that "fuse" was OK we now had a consensus that it was and I thought people would respect that. As soon as this was reverted again I started a discussion. This to me is clearly not edit warring and I think you need to be more careful with your warnings. Dpmuk (talk)

See my response at the article talk page, linked above. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since when... having a notable father any indication of importance or significance? – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Since having my hat handed to me (see especially the discussion in Oppose #12) for not realizing that any credible indication of significance or importance, however slight that indication might be, is enough to prevent an A7 speedy. That's not an admission that I'm trying to disrupt WP to make a point, but rather that I've come around to agree, at least in the most part, with my critics. (Not that I'm planning on reapplying for adminship anytime soon. Once is enough for quite awhile for that, thank you very much.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Well FWIW I think the points made by others in Oppose #12 are baloney. I routinely nominate articles such as this one for deletion without a problem (or hat-handing). – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation

Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards. My76Strat 08:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

3O request

Thanks for following up on my 3O request, I didn't realized I had canceled it when I posted an RFC. No one has responded to the RFC, so if you could come back and help with 3O again, I can delete the RFC request. Let me know what's best. --Aronoel (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Now you've made the RFC, I'd just leave it up and see if anyone comes in to comment. The benefit of a RFC over a Third Opinion is that comments which come in through a RFC will "count" towards reaching a consensus, whereas a Third Opinion cannot be counted towards reaching a consensus or serve as a tiebreaker. I'm not prepared to give an opinion, myself, in this dispute. It would have to wait for some other Third Opinion Wikipedian to come along. Finally, it wasn't so much that you canceled it as it is that it's not considered proper to ask for two different forms of dispute resolution at the same time, since that can be seen as forum shopping. It's up to you what to do, but I'd just let the status be quo. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining, and thanks for your advice.--Aronoel (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi. I've declined your speedy deletion request on QUANTA, because I don't think it could be described as "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" as required by the CSD:G11 criteria. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)



I'm not sure what I did wrong.

This is my first day on the site and I thought I was creating a sub page.

The instructions are detailed, but not all that succinct. So, I've been stepping through them as best as I can.

I was on my personal page and added content to what I thought was a private area.

I did that because it looked like I wasn't supposed to add test content to my user discussion area. Was I wrong in that regard?

I've read the page on creating a sub-page, what went wrong?

Can you help me get one sub-page going? If I see an example,I should be fine.


- Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey.A.Limpert (talkcontribs) 21:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you're new, let me answer at your user page so you won't have to switch back and forth. See you there. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

No, I wasn't planning on sharing the account with anyone. I was hoping to be able to share the sandbox (I thought I was in) with another to put together an entry for a place we used to frequent.

Glad you mentioned it. I'll get up to speed soon enough.

Kind Regards,

- Jeff (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to share the sandbox to develop an article, that kind of collaboration is done all the time and is highly encouraged. Just give him the link and he'll be able to edit it just like you can. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Turner (magician)

Hi I saw you moved the article to Magician and it was deleted for (A Spammy Title)I think a better title to call him is a Menatalist Or illusionist. I thank you for taking the time to look at the article (what is the best way to ensure the page sticks??) As i don't think it should be deleted and I'm sure thousands of other mentalists and lay people would agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freepeaceguy (talkcontribs) 09:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted because it was not Wikipedia-notable (which is different than dictionary-definition notability) — I'm not saying that it was sufficiently notable to survive here, but merely pointing out that issue had not yet been addressed — it was because the article (not just the title, but the article itself) was an obvious attempt to promote Mr. Turner. Wikipedia cannot be used for advertising or promotion. If you rewrite it in neutral non-promotional terms, you may be able to get past that hurdle and then face the issue of whether or not he is Wikipedia-notable enough to be here, though you would do well to look at the question of Wikipedia-notability before spending time rewriting the article. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a site where anyone can publish anything about any topic or person that they think might be of interest to someone. Deciding what can go in and what cannot is what Wikipedia-notability is about. To that end, please see the general tips that I've left on your user talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for 3O

Thank you for your insightful and well reasoned opinion at User talk:Feezo#Article_deletion_discussion. Unfortunately, Nightscream has broken off debate and is no longer responding to my talkbacks. As of now, four users and an administrator have all expressed the opinion that he is canvassing, so I'm hopeful that his silence is one of assent, rather than obduracy. I see no reason to pursue this on WP:AN unless he continues the behavior. Again, thank you very much for you help. Feezo (Talk) 12:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - Christopher Samuda

I'm really frustrated with Wikipedia. How is that Hollywood movie stars and singers get to have wikipedia articles without anyone accusing them of self promotion, but a lowly public servant, or volunteer from the little island of Jamaica, gets speedily deleted. As I have stated before, not because you don't know the person doesn't mean that person is not sufficiently notable, or that the article is intended to "promote" or advertise. At this rate, Jamaicans will never have a profile on wikipedia, unless of course they do something "important" like become Hollywood movie stars or singers, like the Bahamian Rihanna. I am very frustrated and disappointed. There are many notable and noteworthy people in Jamaica, who have had an impact on the Caribbean, and about whom people would like to read. I have made three such contributions which ahve been summarily dismissed, perhaps because there are not enough people from the Caribbean, or Jamaica contributing to Wikipedia.

Very disappointing and frustrating! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaicancontributor (talkcontribs) 05:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You might not be so frustrated, though perhaps still disappointed, if you understood a bit better the mission of Wikipedia and how it works. Let me respectfully suggest that you read what I said to another user in a similar situation. If you still have questions after that, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Egerton House Hotel

Hi You entered a discussion with about his Egerton Town House Hotel Page. I wondered if you noticed his postings seem a cover for posting links to Londontown . com ? Thundernlightning (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, was AGF and only considering the individual edit, not the editor. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Incubation project

I see from the discussion at the Incubation project that you are interested in that project. You might be interested in Wikipedia_talk:Article_Incubator#Use_of_incubation_outside_stated_guidelines. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I have commented. I note that the project page was suggesting that people delete pages out of process - a similar mistake that the Incubate project made. It's useful that people are paying attention! Well done. SilkTork *YES! 00:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Electric Monkey

Today was the first day we tried to post on this site. We are trying to follow the rules and regulations, however our page keeps getting deleted. I have followed examples such as (GSD&M) so I understand what is so wrong with our page. I know we need to add more content, but don't want to do so until we know our page won't keep getting deleting. Please help!!!

Christy —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


Want to be put on trial again? Quarl (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the offer, but I think I'll pass for the time being. My Wiki-participation has slacked off and, at that, has devolved from digging in to just tinkering over the last month or so due to real world matters which don't show any sign of slowing down in the near future. I'll let you know if I'm able to climb back into the saddle (and have retrieved my asbestos britches from the cleaners). Thank you very much for asking, however. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks, TM. The 3O project is new to me, and I'm offering my comments based on a fresh set of eyes looking over the parameters. I hope they are helpful. Regarding the particular 3O "dispute", it involves the Public Information Officer at San Joaquin College of Law and myself, and her efforts to improve the article about her school. She has followed many of my editing suggestions, but sometimes resists my admonitions about NOR. Because I have an interest in California Southern Law School (which I have declared), she is concerned that my "COI" is prejudicial against her school. (We are in different parts of the state.) If you would look over our discussion, my edits, etc., and give her reassurance, I'd appreciate it. And I most certainly welcome criticisms (praises or admonitions) of my editing efforts! (As an inducement, I promise to give you another hemlock barnstar.) --S. Rich (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the confidence, for the same reasons that I've mentioned in the "Adminship" section, just above, I'm afraid that this is a bit too complex for me to take on right now. Indeed, from looking through the discussion I strongly suspect that both complexity and, paradoxically, diffuseness contributed strongly to your 3O request becoming stale. If the dispute can be narrowed down to some very specific issues about particular edits (hopefully pointed out through diffs), then you might consider either relisting it at 3O or taking it to a RFC. Frankly, however, it looks like the article is currently pretty stable and that consensus — such as it is with only two editors participating — supports its current state. Are you sure you need any help at all? Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Question about the WP:3O Award

Hello, Is there a way to offer this reward without your user-name in the body of the text? This is the code I copied (without brackets): subst:The Third Opinion Award|put your message here

With brackets returns the following:

(Sample award blanked to avoid the appearance that I'm giving myself an award... TransporterMan)

..As you can see, your name make it appear that the message was sent by you!

Thank you in advance! Dijcks HotTub Pool 21:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the head's up, just use {{subst:The Third Opinion Award|put your message here}}. Let me know if there is still a problem. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Very cool :0) thank you for this contribution! Dijcks HotTub Pool 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Legends of Voldavia

I am new to this and am not exactly sure how it works. Long story short, I am getting little help from my publisher and am trying to get the word out. I know that the book is new and only has a few reviews thus far. But I have a lot of online readers, and I believe that if I can get my book recognized on Wikipedia, it will "legitimize" it. If there is anything I can do to fix the entry so that it will not be deleted, please let me know. I'm an author that is struggling with marketing my book and could use all the help I can get. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnightvii (talkcontribs) 19:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is going to be a little long, so I'm going to put it on your user talk page. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


Hello sir. I noticed you tagged the Madfly page for speedy deletion just as soon as I created it. I understand why you did that and I will accept the outcome if it gets deleted. However, I do think that some of the details could be used perhaps on William Duvall's page. Do you agree? Shaneymike (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No, not quite. The DuVall article has at least one reliable source and a couple of others (I'm not talking about any of those which your article shares) which might be reliable if dug into. By most lights, that's enough to get past speedy deletion. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No Walls

Hi, it's me again. I wanted to let you know that sometime this week I plan on composing a rough draft of a possible article for that one other band William DuVall was in called No Walls, however, I haven't forgotten the issues you raised with Madfly. I noticed the reason Graeme Bartlett gave for declining your request for a speedy deletion: "another name for a band with an article Comes with the Fall". Furthermore, I do understand Madfly would have looked merely like a fanpage were it not for that excerpt from the Get the Silver review. I am perfectly aware that it is official Wiki policy to maintain a neutral point of view, which is why I included that excerpt in the first place. There is a fair amount of material available on No Walls but I know I'll be hard pressed to find stuff that is independent of the subject. Since No Walls only released one album that I understand is only 7-8 tracks long, I won't create a separate article for it; I'll just incorporate those details with the main article like I did with Neon Christ. I'll see what I can dig up as I go about working on the rough draft, and if there's not enough third-party sources, then there will be no article. Regards, Shaneymike (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Mirrors (band)

Hi. Keep an eye on this one if you would please. I've just scanned through the impressive list of references and they appear not to be notability worthy, not to mention MyFace and SpaceBook. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I might soon send this to AfD - if you don't do it first ;) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

HomePipe Networks

Thank you for adding the reference list. I would like to hae our name correct in our listing, but I do not know how to change it. It should be HomePipe Networks, not Homepipe networks. Unfortunately, I am quite new to this so I do not know what to do to correct it. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you kindly,

Cherie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherieblehm (talkcontribs) 20:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Done for you. Good luck, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for your 30 response.Curb Chain (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Dravet Syndrome Foundation Page

I have just uploaded the final copy of the page with the same name. Thank you for your help with this and please let me know if there is a problem with this final copy Curedravet (talk) 22:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU - Please ignore below, received your other response! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curedravet (talkcontribs) 19:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello - sorry, relatively new to wikipedia and attempted to set up a page today for a nonprofit that raises research money and serves families of children with Dravet syndrome, a rare and intractable epilepsy. I meant to hit preview and instead I published the page, while it was still being worked on. After that point, I received a message that it could be classified under "speedy deletion". Could you please help me with this? Is it also possible to put it back to a state where it is not viewable until I complete it. Sorry! -mary anne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curedravet (talkcontribs) 19:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Toolbar.
Message added 19:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Question about page MEDINA

Hello TransporterMan,

thank you for your advices and comments about the page about MEDINA. As new author of Wikipedia articles I need your help:

On the page MEDINA, I just added some more appropriate citations from reliable sources (see reference 2,14,15). In my opinion, the current version of the article meets the general notability guideline of Wikipedia. What can I do to remove the two warnings?

The topic of this article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. (April 2011)

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources. (April 2011)

Regards Hobramski --Hobramski (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Since you posted the above message, the article has been listed at WP:AFD for a deletion discussion. You should make your case for notability in that discussion. Unless the three refs you mention above specifically refer to MEDINA in a substantial way - and I cannot see that they do, but I do not have access to the full articles and cannot say for sure - it would appear that they talk about the processes and problems which MEDINA addresses not about MEDINA. If that's correct, then the article still is not supported by reliable sources about MEDINA itself and it stands considerable risk of being deleted in that deletion discussion. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Richard Phipson

You are welcome to help improve the article, and I would not hold it against you if you removed the CSD tag. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Please see Talk:Richard Phipson. Let me reiterate that you may have been in your right to tag it, but that's based on a rather narrow interpretation of the (admittedly brief) stub. Also, for future reference, that an article doesn't have reliable sources is not in itself a ground for an A7 tag. Please see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles, which is quite clear. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with you entirely, but you mistake my reasoning; I A7 tagged it because it made no claim of importance or significance, not because there were no RS. (There are a million architects, each one has built some buildings. The fact that they have done so does not make them important or significant.) However, the addition of one or more RS is enough to get past A7. The sources that were added weren't notable, but they were enough to indicate some importance, or at least for me to give it the benefit of the doubt, so I would have detagged it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I am not mistaking you at all. What I am saying is that you chose to read that very stubby stub as not asserting significance. Your remark on sources came later, and my comment on that is separate. I simply disagree with your narrow reading of the stub, and as a somewhat experienced editor I thought I'd give you my opinion.

    But even that isn't so important as this: it is a cooperative project. If you see something you'd like to tag, you can afford to spend a half a minute Googling before you tag it; it's not a match to see who tags it first. Or you could see who the creator is, and in this case you might have seen that I'm not (unfortunately) a spring chicken. Nominating crap for deletion is one thing, nominating whatever comes by is another. Yes, you can claim that your reading of the stub (millions of architects, etc--but not a lot of them are diocesan architects, which is something you could have discovered) was correct, there was no assertion of notability. Or you can look further, and read more broadly, and actively contribute in a positive manner to the encyclopedia. Your choice. Had you contributed, you'd have a DYK template on your talk page in a couple of days. Now you got a "speedy denied" in your contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I acknowledge and — honestly — thank you for your criticism, but that is not to say that I agree with or accept any part of it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 01:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Tendong Hill article

I have been to this place while treaking in south sikkim and I felt this place should be there in wiki. Everyone in that area knows about the legend of Tendong(There is a story with every hill in that area like Maenam,Bhaledunga). I came to knew the meaning of Tendong from the local people. So I don't think it is goin to be a copyright issue. If you still feel it needs to be deleted I will rather rephrase it once before that.SurajitR (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would love to add the Tendong Hill entry, as it is one of the most popular treks in South Sikkim(There are not many). I have refreshed the article and hope that will not create any problem with copyright anymore. I mean I can't change the meaning of TENDONG or the legend, but ofcourse I can change my words. I have been to those places so many times while treking in Himalayan foothills, and all those information I gathered from local resident of that place. Will like to know your thoughts on that topic before adding it again. Regards SurajitR (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lifestyle Housing

I contested this deletion. I believe the copywright infrigment you are referring to is our own from our blog site —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackMc66 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Just in case you didn't see it before the page was deleted as a copyright violation: It doesn't make any difference if you are the copyright holder or if its use here is totally legal, Wikipedia policy prohibits its use here unless you follow one of the processes here. Please note, however, that doing so allows anyone in the world to use your online material, not just Wikipedia. There is no other way (at least none that Wikipedia will accept) to give permission in a way that only Wikipedia, but no one else, can use your material. The better and easier course may be to rewrite the material for the article, but be aware in that regard that mere paraphrasing, change of first to third person, changes in verb tense, and similar revisions of the material will be regarded to be close paraphrasing and will not cure the copyright problem; it really has to be entirely rewritten from the ground up. Even if you cure the copyright problem in that way, this article may still be subject to deletion under WP:NEO as a neologism which is not yet in general use, so I'd recommend that you find some reliable sources showing that it is in general use before you go to the trouble to fix the copyright violation, then fix the copyright problem, being sure to include those sources in the article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
You covered this pretty well, TM. Thanks for helping clear up the issue.  :) PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I understand your assessment and it make sense. However, the term "Lifestyle Housing" or "Lifestyle Living" is a relatively new term used in the real estate market so there are really no "reliable" resources to refer to. This is the whole purpose of us putting it on Wikipedia so that people can get an understanding of what it is exactly. So you are saying that you can never start any new terminology on Wikipedia? That to me does not make any sense. It is like a chicken and egg situation. So how does it ever get started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackMc66 (talkcontribs) 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and encyclopedias only include things which have already proven to be significant, not things which are new, novel, or just now being promoted. So, yes, it does mean that new terminology cannot be started or promoted on Wikipedia. How does new terminology get started without Wikipedia? Just like it did before Wikipedia came into existence. (For more on the purposes of Wikipedia you might be interested in my essay here and in the Scrabble illustration here.) Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

New book article

Thank you again for your kind interest and advice here! I really appreciated your input and that of User:Mr. Stradivarius. Inspired, I have now created an article about the book Throne of a Thousand Years and would like very much to leave it to whatever fate it may encounter, fairly. Would you please have a look, maybe monitor it a bit, to see if everything is OK and proceeds forward in some semblance of normalcy? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I took a quick glance and it looks like very good work. I'll try to take a harder look when I get a moment. Kudos, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Needed now rather urgently. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I just lost a big section of text I was putting into Sydney Downey because of an "edit conflict", that I guess occured when you added a tag that says the article is not notable and based on just one source. Ironically, I was adding more information and including a second source. This is quite frustrating as I now have to rewrite it all. I just made this article and am working on it. Can you please lay off while I work on it. I really don't want to lose more information. Can I trust that I have some time now to add back what I lost? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macomberaffair (talkcontribs) 15:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a second source now. I thought you'd like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macomberaffair (talkcontribs) 15:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the edit conflict, happens to me on the receiving end all the time. I've removed the notability tag, AGF'ing that your sources are both substantial and reliable. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
By way of amends, I've improved the coding of your references. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will have a look at how you did that for the future. The article I wrote on Philip Percival can definately use such a fix. Thanks again.Macomberaffair (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


BTW, I removed your next-to-last footnote because it was the same as the one at the end of the next following sentence. A footnote is generally presumed to cover all the material that proceeds it up to the last footnote from a different source. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^