User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Sleddog116's talk page.
Message added 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maple Syrup Dispute Resolution

I was rectifying a multiple account issue where I had thought that a ban had expired, but my accounts are back in good standing. Sorry about the confusion as it involved being re-banned whilst appealing to arbitration who found in my favor. How would you like to proceed with the resolution of the matter I was previously dealing with? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to join back in the discussion at the article talk page, that would be fine, but I think that the matter has either been resolved or has moved on to a different nuance of the dispute (and it's absolutely been resolved insofar as the DRN is concerned). Each of us who do DR is different: I tend to limit my efforts to specifically what has been requested and try not to let it bleed over into other areas of dispute between the parties or into follow-up DR, but others do. It's your call, but if you want to be one of the ones who try to — for lack of a better term — shepherd a dispute, let me suggest that the greatest part of our ability to resolve disputes comes from our neutrality. The more and longer we get wrapped up in a dispute, particularly by joining in at the article talk page, the more that our neutrality fades, in appearance or in fact, and the more we become just another participant in the dispute with the risk that instead of ending the dispute we prolong it. I'm not saying you or others shouldn't attempt it, but I think that if you do, you have to be very careful not to do more harm than good. Best regards, glad you got to come back, and good DR'ing, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 14:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the heads up. And I understand what you mean entirely, I'm not keen on shepherding. Resolutions are clearer the further away from them you stand. And thanks, glad to be back. <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this need to be resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Dog_and_Canis_lupus_dingo. Tx. Jobberone (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought that it should be or I wouldn't have put it there, but at this point it's at the mercy of the community. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

U-8047 TRUST

Dear TransporterMan, The reporting of an arest in the UK falls under a complicated legal system, reporting should be contemperainious,(published at the time of the incident)they should also be ballanced and unbiased. This court cace is still ongoing and reporting risrictions aply. From legal advice I have been given, it is liabelus under british law to mention the arest at such a late time after the event, plus you are now thretening to remove the little ballence I have tried to add to the statment. Unless you remove the section, which is clearly in breach of the british law of subjudicy, I will have no alternitive other than to persue a libel by litigation cace against you and wickapediaUboater (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC). Uboater (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, this is strange

Hmm, maybe Corinna Caudill isn't a Silar sock [1] - that does suggest that there's some email group or something, whatever this TLP is. And I have no idea why I'm being blamed for the title of the Repatriation of Ukrainians from Poland to the Soviet Union article [2] since I've never edited the article. Since I noticed it though, yes I am tempted to move it back given that there was no discussion to the move. On the other hand, if it was up for an RM I might support such a title change.VolunteerMarek 23:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok I think this user somehow came to believe that because both you and I reverted her, we must be the same person, hence she's blaming me for the repatriations stuff. It also looks more like Silar or some of the IPs involved simply follow this "The Lemko Project" thing which is what can maybe account for the shared interests.VolunteerMarek 23:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Silar, yeah I agree that the IP edit is almost certainly him and I've already filed an SPI for block evasion on that. Glad to see Caudill is talking and I've weighed in at the repatriation article saying I like the new name, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 03:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Complaint

Sir,
Months ago you settled a binding mediation matter on the Non-Lethal Weapons page; The matter at hand was the use of Amnesty International as a source. A certain member has continued to put AI up as a source in specific defiance of your ruling in the matter.
¿What can I do about this? It’s disruptive, abusive, and propaganda. A. J. REDDSON

You must be mistaken. There is no such thing as a "binding mediation matter" at Wikipedia. All dispute resolution, including Mediation Cabal and Formal Mediation is non-binding, except to the minor extent that the opinions of the mediators may contribute to consensus. Indeed, where ordinary content matters are concerned (there are a few exceptions for certain things like copyright violations and unsourced negative biographies of living persons) only consensus between the parties discussing a matter is binding. (And even if consensus is reached upon a matter at one point in time, consensus can subsequently change.) Even the Arbitration Committee is not empowered to make binding decisions concerning content matters, but only upon conduct matters.

As to my prior involvement, if you are referring to this MedCab case I am even further confused because my final opinion was that Amnesty International was an acceptable source for the purposes for which it was being used at that time (and, indeed, a reliable source in general). But even then, my opinion was only an opinion, not a judgment or ruling, and summed up with:

"In short, it is my opinion that existing Wikipedia policy allows the use of these sources so long as they are clearly attributed to the organizations which made them. Those who feel that the statements are biased are free to suggest opposing statements from other influential organizations, which will be evaluated at the time they are proposed, but the lack of those opposing opinions does not mandate the exclusion of the AI opinion until they can be provided. I would close by suggesting that if those opposed to the use of the AI report still feel that they would like to pursue this matter, the next best step would probably be a Request for comments to see if other editors support their view."

^{(Emphasis added.)} I hope this helps clarify the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. When you recently edited Wola Piotrowa, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Galicia and UPA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed (oops) — TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

RE U-8047 submarine museum

Hi, I still cannot get the citations set out corect on the page, pehaphs TexasAndroid could help? Many thanks Richard uboaterUboater (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No cite

Dear Transporterman, RE: Royal Armouries Museum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Armouries_Museum

Sections 2 and 3 have no citations or reference and are not verified. Just because they are so big why are they treated difrently to us? I feel this is not fair.Uboater (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF for a comprehensive answer. Take a look at Category:Articles_with_unsourced_statements. According to the count there, there are over 280,000 articles in the same state as yours was in. The fact is that editors stumble onto an article that they want to work on and do so; the fact that there are other articles which are in as much (or more) need of improvement is no reason for them to not work on one article and not on another. We're all volunteers here and do as much or as little as we care to do. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 13:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, TransporterMan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC). 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.

The subject is "Wikipedia: Guidance". Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 12:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm) II

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Ks0stm's talk page.
Message added 20:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary

Hi, I see you've closed the dispute resolution for List of Slovene writers and poets in Hungary as no discussion on the talk page. That entirety of the talk page for that article is focused on this dispute. Should I open a new dispute resolution on the same topic? Dialectric (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to reopen it, but have raised the issue to the DRN community here to see if anyone else disagrees. Please feel free to comment there, if you like. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

TransporterMan, I just replied there. Regards, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 21:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An article for you to take a gander

Hey there, TransporterMan. I was keeping an eye on the new pages log, and I came across an article that is in your self-stated area of interest. I think that this article might be of interest to you. It's a complete mess at the moment (and was even worse when I first found it), but I think you might be able to expand it and clean it up a bit. At first glance, I thought this article was deletion fodder (since it's not particularly notable, I don't think), but I think with a little work, it might be saveable - and you are infinitely more qualified in this area than I. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: WR Draw

Name needs to be changed to WR Draw (Erie Railroad) first off. Second off, I'd axe it entirely until someone writes a respectable version of that article. Next, a lot of my research has come off of books not online, so I can give you the books, but you'll need to get them in person. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh, but that's against the powers of an admin (just outright deletion). The article has some value to me, considering the Erie Railroad is my specialty, however, with college, time is needed wisely in places. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 21:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: DRN Comment

Hey TM - You said you were confused about my comment here. Thanks for sending me the message; I'd like to clarify, but could you tell me exactly what part of the comment confused you? I think I might see the problem; after reading the comment, I came across as being a little bit more terse than I intended to. Is that your concern? As far as the content is concerned, I read the dispute and it looked to me like the editors were wanting us at DRN to take action - which, of course, we don't usually do (as I explained - any other editor could revert our changes as easily as anyone else's). Am I mistaken in saying that? If so, please let me know. As for the second part, as I said, it came across perhaps a little more strongly than I intended, but I was concerned about the almost-immediate use of the warning template. The editor in question is new, and I'd hate to see him get scared off; since he is unlikely to fully appreciate (as of yet) the consensus process on Wikipedia, I think adding warning templates to his page might be a bit hasty at this point, so I asked if anyone had thought to ask him why he removed the template from the page - he might have had a valid reason, and I think, as a new editor, he should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Hope that helps - please jump in on the dispute if you think I've handled it badly. I'm still learning. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I get the first part (and that's what confused me) now. I thought you were replying to JamesBWatson, and duh, I get it now, sorry for bothering you: self-whack! As for the second part, as I said here: Eh. In any other circumstance, I'd say we judge edits not editors and the reason for the removal is irrelevant, but since the editor in question is a newcomer I suppose <rumble, grumble, rumble> it's not outside the pale to ask. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Message

		A beer on me!
		Got time for a Gmail chat? Whenaxis (contribs) DR goes to Wikimania! 22:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! and thanks! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 01:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Boom! Studios

Just to let you know I blocked Njkaters for 10 days because his lack of talk page use combined with continuing to make his changes when the page isn't protected or him blocked is starting to get disruptive. I said in my block message that if he agreed to use talk pages I'd unblock him early and that if he returned after this block expires continuing to make changes without discussion I would block him indefinitely. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 13:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@TransporterMan:Thank you for you assistance in maintaining the integrity of the Boom! Studios page. Your continued efforts are greatly appreciated. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

BMW R1100GS noticeboard

Hello, thank you for your contribution toward the debate on relevance of trivia within the BMW R1100GS article. However, the discussion on the noticeboard was closed after two days and before I had a chance to respond - it is now described as 'resolved or abandoned' but neither is the case and it is, in fact, ongoing. Can I request that the noticeboard discussion be re-opened? Thanks. Regards Rivercard (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

But it has been closed for a week and you've edited in the interim. Why now? I cannot see that any progress have been made towards achieving consensus for the edits in dispute and an RFC would still seem to be the best way to proceed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

'Why now?' - Simply because I didn't realise that a closed discussion can be reopened but I have since been informed that they can.

More importantly, it is to provide an answer to two assertions on the noticeboard:

(1) 'I've looked at the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections and the Wikipedia:Handling trivia essay and I find no policy or guideline which requires the inclusion or exclusion of the material removed in this edit.'

(2) 'No other policy or guideline has been brought forward to justify the inclusion or exclusion of this information, nor can I think of any which would do so.'

Point (2) was absolutely correct at the time on the 'other policy/guideline' issue, which is why I think it is important that we can now raise the following policy/guide:

"Trivia and popular culture sections

Wikipedia generally does not support the addition of trivia and pop-culture sections within articles. There is a tendency for such sections to degenerate into long lists of movie and TV show appearances, song lyrics, and the like. Similarly, lists of celebrity owners of cars (etc.) tend to grow to inappropriate length. The guideline that has been widely accepted for automotive subjects is that mention of pop-culture references should be strictly limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. It is not sufficient to note that the vehicle had a major influence on its owner or some movie or TV show — such facts belong in the article about the owner, movie or TV show."

Of course none of this debate would be possible in a printed encylcopedia, which is exactly where the open dialogue nature of Wikipedia comes into its own. Regards. Rivercard (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion. Please notify the other editors of the reopening and then state your position there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 20:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering"

I went to write that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering was offensive and found that you had already done so. What if the page was moved to "pettifoggery"? Hyacinth (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it will ever happen, for three reasons: first, it's too ingrained in Wikipedia culture, and, second, advocating for offended lawyers is going to be about as popular as advocating for the Hollywood Ten in 1948, and, third, it's been suggested as an alternate term in the past. I'm resigned to trying to give Wikilawyering a good name rather than changing the term. Thank you, however, for considering it to be offensive. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 18:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at WT:DRN.
Message added 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 21:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail! The subject is: Just a little request. Thanks. Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 23:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OS grid conversions

Yeah, this is exactly what you get because of Wikipedia's broken OSGB-36 conversion. It's the same result you get with Streetmap.co.uk for the same reason -- White_Tower_(Tower_of_London) dumps you in the middle of the moat.

It's one of the things that upsets me more than almost anything else on WP -- a bug that's been known about for 4 years, with code that could fix it also known for 4 years, that impacts every single article in the UK, and yet ... tumbleweed blowing in the wind.

It really should be possible to get this fixed. And it ought to be fixed. It's just a question of finding somebody that's confident about making edits to that system to do it. Jheald (talk) 09:48, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Easy there, big guy. I didn't mean to get you all steamed up. I'm making inquiries, let me see what I can scare up. Thanks, and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) | DR goes to Wikimania! 16:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TransporterMan. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

...

Ok so It's my Image! So regarless I don't need to put nothing else but my {{ OWN }} And its Free Wikepidia so They can't remove my Images that I be posting up! It's Un-Fair so my suggestion is to leave my page/ Image of El Fresno alone.. Thanks (unsigned, but added 22:36, 2 February 2011 by User:Xchunksx)

Image was taken by me thank you, and no it does not need no license because it's my Own work work..

It does need a license. Just because you said you took the picture means nothing. Anybody can claim they took the picture. Without proper licensing, it's liable to get removed. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

UFC AfD's

You may not be aware, but we have been ask by two admins not to nominate them due to the disruption that it causes, but to create an summary for the year and redirect them there. You may (or may not) want to have a read or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability‎#Omnibus articles. Mtking ^(edits) 22:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the discussion that you link, above, but on just a quick scan through it I wonder if it doesn't have a "no consensus" result (but either way, see below). I was aware of the position taken by DGG and Beeblebrox, but their decisions cited in the DRN case were for future events, whereas the event in the DRN case was for a past event. Moreover, I have to say that while I think that they were free to make those suggestions or render those opinions I do not consider their suggestions or opinions binding on the community (especially since they are offering a blanket solution to the general situation when in fact there could be some individual future events which could be independently notable). If the one-article scheme is to go forward, it needs to be posed as a policy or guideline via the method described in the policy policy (not a typo) because decisions made at a project cannot, pursuant to the WP:CONLIMITED policy, bind the entire Wikipedia community and the same goes for the opinions or suggestions of individual administrators. Therefore, in my opinion, at this point the one-article scheme is not binding on the Wikipedia community (and due to CONLIMITED I hold to that position even there is consensus in its favor in the above-linked discussion) and for that reason the proper method to resolve the existence of UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann is AfD. I must say in all candor that I think that the supporters of the one-article scheme may be headed for frustration or even censure if they continue to insist on its use without going through the policy-creation steps (and that's a shame, because I do think it's a good idea, not only for MMA but for all series-type events). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: Since I've said this here, I've reluctantly gone on to register a point of order in the Omnibus article discussion. — TM 14:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I replied to your response there. My goal, and rationales, have been based on current policies rather than creating new policies. I haven't argued WP:ROUTINE, which I think is a contentious case to argue, but instead argued that it is an alternative to outright deletion at AFD via failure to pass WP:N with independent coverage. If needed, they can all be sent to AFD individually. I do agree with you that the time is coming to have a broader discussion, but since the omnibus system doesn't require that we delete or redirect anything, I don't see an issue continuing with that project. That discussion is actually moving along fairly well, for a change. If I'm missing some finer point, by all means inform me, as I've tried to research this as best I can but don't claim to be an expert on these matters. The only reason I'm there to begin with is to assist with insuring that this is done consistent with the current policies and guidelines, which means yes, doing it on a case by case basis. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Additionally: If a larger discussion is to take place, would you be willing to assist in this? RfCs are not something that I (and I don't think others involved) have a great deal of experience with, and if a larger discussion is to take place, guidance would be helpful. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• I am not going to get into a debate here about the actual case at hand (that is already going on in far too many venues), save yo say, a AfD with a nomination for anything other than delete is grounds for Speedy Keep (see WP:Speedy #1), secondly I dispute your view that CONLIMITED is at play with the omnibus article plan, there is no attempt to over ride existing policy or guideline by redirecting to an omnibus article, just to ad-hear to them, infact it can be argued that as WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is core policy those advocating single event articles (a kin to a article on every NFL game or one per week) are trying to retain them contra to CONLIMITED. Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I have said at length at the project page, I do not disagree with you. The issue is not whether most of the individual-event articles are or are not notable. I suspect that most if not virtually all of them are not. That's the reason the article at DRN needed to go to AfD. The question is just how much drama, puppetry, and canvassing the community is willing to put up with again and again and again to get rid of the unending stream of them — which it has policies and processes which are quite sufficient to do, you are right — while retaining the nuggets of verifiable, non-undue stuff that is in them. The issue isn't the abstract or objective sufficiency of existing policy, but its practical sufficiency. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your words, I do appreciate it. But that last time, we went over this, he or she "got their way." So I left it alone. I told this person that I'm not going to waste time going back and forth in a discussion when we've already had it. Nothing was truly accomplished and no consensus was reached last time. I'm working on various items for acoustic music as we speak. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, I think, that when you walked away from it two years ago that formed consensus. Most debates here do not end up (unfortunately) with one editor outright saying that they accept the current edit. They just end up with one editor walking away and that forms consensus. If you didn't like what was happening, in order to avoid consensus from forming you needed to pursue the matter onward, probably via a RFC. (The ironic thing for your current situation is that there probably wasn't consensus for the genre being removed back then until you dropped the stick and walked away.) The problem you're facing now is that there is clearly an edit war going on at that article and if it continues someone is going to get blocked - and for the reasons set out in my note at the article, I think that you're the prime target. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Supplement: See the suggestion I made to Escape Orbit in the next section, below. TM - 19:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The last time this happened, no consensus was reached because it went round and round between two people and as I said, it fell dead till recently because it became pointless to continue going back and forth. This person is trying to argue that acoustic music isn't a genre, but you can also say indie music not a genre, but a label ascribed to those who don't want to be seen as mainstream or wear certain style of clothes and other such things. But than again, you can still be mainstream and indie. Nobody makes a big fuss over indie music, so why acoustic music? I understand where you are coming from and we need to come to a consensus or this issue will keep coming up. His or her comment that was left below shows their uncivil nature. It seems like frustration is piling up on their part. Other people need to comment and not just two people going back and forth. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nunes

Thanks for your message. I'm in no hurry to summon a stick to beat Fishhead2100 with, but things cannot drag on as they are. I've given him ways forward to help save face, if that's what matters, but got no where. Thanks for your input. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Though I'm not going to do it, someone is eventually going to spot and report both of you for a slow-motion edit war. While, for the reasons I've set out just above, think that C.C. is the more prominent target, you're certainly not out of range, yourself. My suggestion would be for both of you to drop the stick, leave the article in whatever state it is (in this regard) in now, and let the matter sit for a few days or a couple of weeks so you're both out of danger of sanctions then pose the question of whether or not Acoustic is a genre of music at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music. Just a suggestion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Now he or she is resorting to be uncivil by acting like this. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 15:05, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Improving coordinates

Hi, when improving coordinates, as here, please don't be overprecise. The previous coords were to five places of decimals, which is accurate to one metre. Going to seven places of decimals implies an accuracy to one centimetre - way too precise for a structure several metres long. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem, fixed. Will watch it in the future. Thanks for the head's up. — 21:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WEBSITE

Hi, please can you tell me how to get our web site www.u-boat.co.uk verified as a credible citable source.Uboater (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not likely that it will ever be, for the reasons set out in the WP:SPS policy. Take a look at WP:SOURCES and the material that follows it. There's no approval process, sources are either reliable or they're not. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hydranencephaly

Thank you so much for your help. I appreciate the information and guidance you have provided. I have deleted the links I added to the article referencing either Yahoo groups or Facebook and noted the reason for this edit on the Hydranencephaly talk page. The remaining link to a Facebook group was posted by another editor and I am not comfortable removing it. This dispute has centered around either the deletion of an external link or the deletion and replacement of an external link with a different external link. I have not deleted any of the links put up by the other editor as I don't wish to escalate this difference of opinion. If you don't mind, I have some additional questions regarding source material.Neuronormal (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you've not already done so, you need to read WP:V and WP:RS (and to find prior discussion of particular sources, you can try searching in the archives at WP:RSN). If you still have questions after looking through V and RS (or before, but I'd really encourage you to read them first), I'll be happy to try to answer them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:3O Clarification Requested - File:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png

Please visit File talk:Firefox-fonts-advanced.png#Warrants "advanced" description at your earliest convenience. I repeat my request here for your benefit:

Whereas User:FleetCommand is correct, the rendered WP:3O makes no explicit statement regarding it's scope as applicable to (1) file name alone, (2) Description alone, or (3) file name and Description jointly. I hereby request further clarification and shall notify User:TransporterMan accordingly. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 06:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I recently notified the relevant editors of related discussions of this ANI - Bad Faith and Mr Bratland - but I mistakenly did not notify you, so apologies for that (it was easily done amongst the mass of words). Unfortunately it's now been closed - rather too swiftly, I thought. Although I have been (falsely) accused of 'canvassing' (though fortunately other editors didn't agree), so even this innocent note to you may result in some ludicrous accusation. Anyway, stay free. Rivercard (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward with DRP

Hi TransporterMan. With all this talk about streamlining the process and some ideas that I can up with in my userspace, do you think it'll be possible to merge DRN and 3O together? And do you have any ideas on how to possibly incorporate third opinion and DRN so neither losses its advantageous effect? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think about this for a day or two, but my inclination is to say that DRN is mediation-oriented and 3O is judgmental-oriented and that the philosophies are too different to be merged. (I'm also not at all sure that the 3O community would allow it.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I'll let the thought sit with you for the next couple of days. But your opinion is greatly valued whether it be for or against, because there doesn't seem to be anywhere we can merge to streamline the DR process. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 20:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Criswell College

Actually the discussion was not finished, I have been waiting on other editors to weigh in on the discussion from another discussion. The Schools dispensational nature is not unsourced and it should be noted that Angelichordesummoner is a member of the staff at Criswell. It is a pity that you decided so arbitrarily to close the subject. Hungus (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We judge edits, not editors and, even if it is true what you say is true, conflict of interest editing is discouraged not prohibited. If the material cannot be included under Wikipedia policy, it cannot be included. The source you added does not appear to be a reliable source and, as someone else has already tagged it, does not support the assertion because it does not speak about the official views of the college. The material is unsourced and is subject to removal by any editor. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not unsourced, and the information is true. It may not be sourced to the point where the discussion is ended but that is unfortunately do to the available public sources an the inability to cite archival information because it has been blocked by the president's office at The Criswell College. Hungus (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Criswell_College#Dispensationalist. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

re:

the DRN #Katie_Piper thread. Nope - not involved at all. Just that I've always been a big fan of Steve's work, and a week or so ago I chimed in on another thread (Donner Party). I was doing the (talk page stalker) thing and thought 2 folks that I have a ton of respect for were in disagreement, so I dropped by to see if I could help. Hence my post there, and your subsequent comment which encouraged me to drop a talk page comment as well. cheers. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Good to have you there and thank you for your observations and contributions, glad you came by. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Wow. <!--ARCHIVENOW--> really works. It's a little bizarre because it's programmed for ClueBot and yet MiszaBot is picking it up. I feel like a... stupid genius. Stupid because I don't know it's working. Genius because I added ClueBot to the archiving team. =) Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:DRN#List of Mr. Belvedere episodes

List of Mr. Belvedere episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

You closed it as premature. ...That's... reasonable. However, article talk page doesn't solve anything or help anything; in fact, I'm afraid that the major contributor of this article won't change his mind about these things. If we use the talk page, we both may agree or disagree too much without progress. I need someone more experienced to give him a good sense of commonality. --George Ho (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't know and grasp how beneficial the article talk page is. In fact, the contributor changed his mind in one second by my rhetorical questions. Let's forget this request that I stroke out and then let the DRN message be archived, okay? --George Ho (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi dear TransporterMan. Please explain about your edition.Thanks --Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of the Third Opinion page:

Requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed below. If your dispute is removed for that reason (check the history to see the reason), please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion.

About relisting, however, I have to tell you, however, that if no volunteer has taken it within six days, it's very unlikely that any will do so. I've not read the talk page, but from what you said in your listing at the Third Opinion project, you might instead try taking the question to the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Cromlix

Thanks for adding the co ordinates there I didn't know how to do that. Just wondered what the quickest way of finding and adding them was? Thanks very much.RafikiSykes (talk) 20:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. The short answer is that there's not a super-simple way to do it. I see you're in Glasgow. If you know where the place is located, then you can just find it in Wikimapia, put the crosshairs on it, and the latitude and longitude will be what's in your URL bar in your browser, then use that to work up the {{coords}} tag. Being in Texas, and the ghosts of my Scottish ancestors being stubborn about providing information today , I had no idea where it was, so here's the steps I followed:

1. I used the link in the article to go to the hotel website and looked at the directions they gave to get to the hotel, which in effect said go north from Kinbuck and follow the signs.

2. I went to the Kinbuck page and used the coords there to find Kinbuck in Google Maps.

3. I used the satellite view to find likely prospects for the house. Then used Google Maps street view until I found the sign pointing to the house off the main road. (It's here: 56°13′42″N 3°57′02″W)

4. I followed the lane up to the house, then compared the satellite image of the house to the photos in the article and at the hotel's website to make sure it was the same house.

5. Then I switched to Wikimapia to get the actual coordinates. (They were probably there in Google Maps, but I trust Wikimapia more.)

That's it. I use other techniques on other places, but that's the way I did it here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for explaining all of that. I will give it a try when I next edit an article needing the co ordinates. Thanks again. :) RafikiSykes (talk)

I also edit at Wikimapia and just added a square for it there. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Occupy Wall Street

Can you close that dispute on DRN? I'm not sure what template to use. --regentspark (comment) 02:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done with big thanks for helping with it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. DR is interesting (and confusing!). --regentspark (comment) 23:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Assist please

Since you are actively involved in the guidance of Oncenawhile, could you advise me how to proceed in the following situation. Since the AE was filed, several queries in the thread that examines the casualty figures in the lead, the subject of the AE disagreement, have gone unanswered. Instead, a new thread has just been opened stating: There is no consensus and therefore material should be removed. Can you emphasise the importance of achieving consensus through discussion, and not avoiding collaborative duties?
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 11:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hm. While collaboration is, of course, the ideal here, and is especially important in controversial areas such as where you are working, calling it a "duty" is stretching things. It is entirely possible for editors to pose questions or arguments and demand responses as a means of grinding an axe or continuing a I didn't hear that argument and to answer them in that situation merely enables an inappropriate continuation of an argument which should have been dropped long before. Let me hasten to say that I am not saying that's what you are doing in this case, but what I am saying is that because of that possibility that there simply isn't any duty to answer another editor's questions or arguments. On the other hand, if you feel that your arguments about the issue in question are compelling, but cannot get the other editors in the discussion to agree with you or, indeed, to respond at all, the best way to go is to make a request for comments on the issue on the article talk page to draw other editors into the discussion. It could also be, of course, that no response simply indicates that the other editor, Oncenawhile in this case, has simply given up and withdrawn from the fray; if you do not receive some kind of comment from him/her in the next week or so, you can probably safely assume that's the case. On the third hand (or is it the fourth? envision Mahakali), your questions may be pertinent, so I am going to drop a note to Oncenawhile pointing to this discussion and I hereby encourage him/her to respond to them if that is the case. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. My fear was that a constructive discussion was becoming derailed, and that Oncenawhile may not be familiar with relevant behavioral guidelines, which address this very point.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 14:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys, thank you both for your comments.

TransporterMan, I would be grateful for your guidance here. I have always understood that if an insertion is disputed by other editors, standard wiki-practice is that it stays out of the article until consensus is gained (i.e. at least according to the essays WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO). Is that correct in theory and in practice in your experience?

Ankh, for the avoidance of doubt, I fully intend to work towards a consensus view on the underlying point in the debate.

Oncenawhile (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me start by saying I've not recently looked at the article or talk page so I'm only speaking in generalities both here and in my foregoing comments, above. While BRD is the best practice, it is that, only a best practice, not a rule. The rules are: (a) don't edit war, either in general or by violating the three revert rule, (b) don't violate any special restrictions on reverting (such as, but not only, the one revert rule placed on this particular article under the ARBPIA arbitration decision), and (c) subject to those rules, when a "new" edit or proposed edit is reverted or otherwise objected to, then it cannot remain/be in the article unless consensus is achieved to leave/put it there (by "new" I mean an edit which changes a previously-stable article) due to the "no consensus" rule here. Those are all short summaries, please see the actual rules for the full details. I hope that helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always for your clear and thoughtful response. Oncenawhile (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

DRN advice

Since you regularly oversee Dispute Resolution, could you please have a look at this particular thread, and advise on how a mutually accepted terminology might be attained. Perhaps a third-party proposal might succeed in securing the agreement of the one dissenting party? Much obliged.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 23:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but as I explained to someone else in this edit, I only have limited availability this week and will have virtually none May 11-22, so I'd best decline. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Walter Mignolo DRN

Hi, I saw you closed the Walter Mignolo dispute resolution case but it has not been resolved or abandoned. I know that I was just waiting for some intervention or a third party's opinions on the issue, as there has been a very lengthy discussion (documented on talk page) already in place. Some of my points have still not been addressed--the meaning of endorsing something, examples of similar dissenting opinions that are all included, etc. There was one outside user who commented on the DR noticeboard saying to include the information, but we have yet to gain a consensus or settlement as the already involved user still disagreed. If you could reopen the case or please point me in the right direction as to where I should take this issue up, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. DietFoodstamp (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Diet, it was listed at DRN for 12 days without any volunteer choosing to help. Relisting it is not likely to obtain any more responses, so I would suggest that your best next step would from a purely procedural point of view be to file a RFC request at the article talk page. However, let me note that I had not looked at the substance of your request until just now. (I closed it simply because it had not received any attention at DRN and there had been no recent action at the article or article talk page.) I now have done so, and if you want my third party evaluation, I have to say that though I think it is a somewhat close question, that at the end of the day I agree with your opponents in their analysis of the situation and would predict that an RFC will fail (or end in a "no consensus" position, which as a practical matter amounts to the same thing due to this provision of the Consensus policy). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hi TransporterMan. Can i ask you to elaborate on the removal of a third opinion for Android version history since the edit summary is a bit vague for me? Thanks Jenova20 15:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to and thank you for asking. The instructions at the top of the 3O page say, under the "How to list a dispute" heading:

Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute.

All forms of content dispute resolution require discussion prior to making a request. If the other editor won't respond, I'd suggest filing a RFC on the article talk page to draw in more editors to the discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

He/she has responded once now but stopped edit warring so thanks for that =] Jenova20 08:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

3O tag removed

Hello TransporterMan, and thanks for your comment at my talk page. I've talk to both Writ Keeper and Curb Chain, and realized my mistake. This was my first try at 3O, and I'm sorry if I made any trouble there. I'll try another channels if the issue does not solved, but my goal was resolving the issue peacefully from the beginning.

Many thanks again for informing me! Your warm advice was very helpful. Best Regards, ---PBJT (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No apology needed, and I'm glad the information was useful. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe having a look?

• Hello,

Saw your username on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Since you seem highly qualified in real life and experienced in here, may I interest you to have a look and maybe provide a third opinion on Talk:Necrophobia#PhD thesis & cultural introduction claim request posted here: Wikipedia:Third opinion ? Or it cannot be done because I contacted you? I am not experienced with Wikipedia disputes and, frankly, this dispute has degenerated as far as I am concerned from an edit-warring about the content to something more personal about how I was treated, how the other user rollbacked my edit and dismissed my effort as "nonsense". I would like to hear the opinion of an experienced unbiased member. Is it even worth the effort and my time so far? It seems to me that Wikipedia is run by a group of deletionists with admin rights. Thanks for your time anyway. If no answer on Third Opinion, I'll proceed to file a dispute resolution. Regards. --92.118.252.49 (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Royal Armouries

You have removed the artical from the Royal Armouries page again. PamD did this last week, which is what has set me aginst you all. I am not going to shout and sware but I urge you to put the artical back, even if you have to change it a little. You was quite happy to let PamD print the story of my arest for fraud, for which I was not charged with any crime, yet you all persist in not letting the people know that both the last two directors of what you call "A reptuble Museum" have both been suspended for fiddeling the books. If this is done then I will be happy and will not disrupt your site again. Please dont take that as a thret or anything. Yours uboater92.40.148.173 (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC) PS I think the link was wrong to the source it should be:-

http://www.museumsassociation.org/museums-journal/news/31052012-museum-director-suspended#.T8eOqacSrxQ.blogger

Since you are asking calmly and not engaging in vandalism, I will refrain from merely deleting this posting and reporting this as block evasion. I am not attempting to manipulate the situation, insult you, or resist you for no reason, but the fact is that I do not have the right to replace that material because to do so would violate Wikipedia policy. While the copyright violation might be corrected by a ground-up rewriting of the information, the problem is, first, that the source is not a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia (because there is no indication that the reporting site has a reputation or legal obligation for fact-checking; newspapers and scientific journals have such an obligation and most have the reputation of doing so as well). Because this is negative information about a living person, Wikipedia policy (given here) very strictly requires a reliable source for the information. That's one of the strictest policies in Wikipedia. There is, however, a second problem as well; if the source is true, the matter about the current director is still under investigation. To report it now would violate Wikipedia's presumption in favor of privacy. That's the reason that the information about your arrest — which I added to the article, not PamD — was removed from the article by DGG. I disagreed with his reasoning at the time (though I bowed to it), but the policy has since been changed in a manner which no longer allows my argument. If I were to add the material about you to the U-8047 article today, in other words, I would clearly be in violation of policy and would be subject to being blocked. The same is true about the material about the current director. Pursuant to that policy, if the director is removed, it will probably be widely reported in clearly reliable sources and it can probably be mentioned in the article when that happens. There's nothing in the source you provided about any prior director being removed; I'll see what I can find, but I've discovered that because I'm in the US that my searches apparently do not pick up as many UK news sources as do searches performed by someone in the UK. To begin to close, you seem to be implying that the charges against you were never filed or were dropped. I sincerely hope that was the case. Finally, please do not reply to these comments. Since you are blocked, posting here through an IP address or by any other means is absolutely prohibited and you're just going to get additional IP addresses, or a whole range of addresses blocked by doing so. I will see what I can do, within the bounds of Wikipedia policy, to add the material to the article. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My research so far illustrates the hazards of non-reliable sources such as the museumassociation.org article. While that article mentions that the prior director resigned after being suspended while "irregularities" were being investigated, then becoming ill, it fails to report, as does a 31 May 2009 article in the Sunday Times, "Travel, food, chauffeurs - quangocrats are at it too?" by Roger Waite and Steven Swinford that "An internal investigation later cleared him of any impropriety." To include anything in the article about that director would have to mention both those facts, which would make it too insignificant for inclusion under WP:UNDUE. I've not yet been able to find any reliable sources for the current director, but under the circumstances (as described above) it will be very unlikely that any information can be included even if I am able to find any. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've taken another look and cannot find another source about the current director other than the museumassociation.org source which is both non-reliable and premature for the reasons described in more detail, above. Perhaps more will show up about that matter and it will become subject to being added some time in the future. — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)