User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Stuck Request for Mediation

This issue has been mentioned at the RFM board also. My apologies if it is going in too many places. A Request for Mediation has been filed by User;Z07x10 and seems to be stuck. It isn't getting processed by the bot. I think that I can guess what the problem is. The filing party requested the same mediation a year and a half ago, and it was declined. The bot may not be designed to handle two requests with the same name, or two requests with the same name and same filing party. If you haven't yet looked into it, can you please look into it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

See my response (and suggestion to you) here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

As you suggested, I have entered an Abstain on the mediation request. It still isn't showing up as a pending request. You may be right that a previous malformed request confused the bot, or I may be right that the bot is confused because the request is being recycled (another request by the same name with the same filer was entered a year-and-a-half ago). In either case, I would suggest that the bot operator be asked to look at it; maybe the bot operator already is aware of the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

sockpuppet accounts

Krakkos keep changing Turkic related pages to iranian and I think it's probably SP of history of iran. both love to change anything to iranian. Can we sure if they are related or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator and can offer no assistance in that regard other than this advice: If you believe you have evidence which can be clearly articulated, file a report at Sockpuppet investigations. But understand that our rules will not allow an electronic investigation (that is, looking behind usernames to see the IP addresses from which they are editing; that's called a CheckUser) on a mere suspicion or hunch. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't care if it's his SP or not. I just want to keep Turkic pages safe from fanatic iranians. A random iranian posted a thing on Zengi thread and I corrected his mistake and explained it with resource but Kansas bear just came and removed my all post. They're numerous and they keep rewriting history. I'm wondering that, aren't there any group which check pages and refs as referee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

No such group exists. Something like that has been proposed several times and in several ways, but has never obtained the consensus of the community. If you can show a clear pattern of POV-pushing or other improper behavior, you might be able to make a complaint at AN which would get them blocked or topic-banned and perhaps even get someone to go back and correct all that has been done. But don't forget that reports at AN and ANI can BOOMERANG. Also, please sign your talk page and noticeboard posts with four tildes; failing to do so often causes experienced editors to devalue your posts as coming from someone who likely doesn't know what they're talking about. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any way to get help from someone who can be unbiased about topic(s)? BöriShad (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Help which is both (a) ongoing and (b) across a range or number of articles, no. In individual cases, that's what dispute resolution is for. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bzuk, bilcat & milboureone

Have created a situation which began by mulitple, repearted reverts of edits to avaition artile without citation requests. moreover when I began to explain my edits on various article talk pages, eithe no discussion resulted, or they refered back to the same references that I debunked with multiple, more accurate source; or they began personal attack. more over they locked, block article with not legitimate reason anf on there talk pages made unfounded and disparaging remarks. it is my opinion that all thre regularly abuse their administrative power and that those previleges should be revoked. No reply is needed and I won t be checking back here. However, a response in terms of the recommended revolking of administrator status is requested, and I believe required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B027:1A31:5E31:EC67:4A2C:8EDC (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Of those three, only MilborneOne is an administrator, so there's no administrator status to revoke for Bzuk and BilCat. On the other hand, I'm not an administrator (aka sysop) and, even if I was one, administrators have no particular powers over other administrators. If you wish to seek desysopping of someone, you need to start a complaint at AN or ANI, after carefully reading the instructions on that page, and be prepared to monitor and respond to responses made there (and anyone who files at one of those forums also needs to be aware of the possibility that their complaint may boomerang on them). — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hi T-man. I know you are travelling or about to be, but just wanted to bring something to your attention; I was looking at the Supercarrier discussion and found that you said an editor recused as a volunteer for that dispute, yet a week later the same editor posted a "Volunteer Note" in the same section. Although the person who initiated the discussion withdrew the complaint, and there was no actual consequence in this instance, I probably don't need to say much more for you to understand what I'm getting at. If you do want me to go further than that, of course please feel free let me know. Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledged and understood (and sorry for the delay in response). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict thread

There is reverting in the Kashmir conflict thread. Human3015 edited a post by an unregistered editor. The unregistered editor reverted the edits, saying not to edit the comments of others. This might be an off-by-one, but it may need a quick look to see whether it needs to be addressed further. I will also notify User:Steven Zhang. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've responded at Steve's talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

User:TransporterMan, since you are a member of WP "Dispute Resolution," can I ask for your professional advice? I would like to know if there is any option available for me as an editor, and where I can request a "dispute resolution" involving content in the article Intelligent design. For a better understanding of the issues that we have been discussing, see: Talk:Intelligent design#Proposal to Change Introductory Lines of Article. I'm at a perfect loss as to what to do. Your advice will be appreciated.Davidbena (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. You've requested dispute resolution through formal mediation and that request will be pending (unless you withdraw it) until July 8. If it is rejected after that time because not enough people participate (it might be a bit longer because I'm going to be traveling and may not get back online to close or accept it before the 14th or so, though some other member of the Committee may close or accept it in my absence), then you can try either DRN or a RFC. If the editors you're in conflict with won't participate in mediation, there's a good chance that they also won't participate at DRN, so RFC might be your best bet in that circumstance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll hold-off until the end of this mediation-process has run its course. Have a good vacation!Davidbena (talk) 21:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

How incivil of me

Hey, dude, hope you don't mind my [somewhat snarky] corrections of "incivil" to your essay Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. It's kinda weird that it is "incivility" but "uncivil", I must grant you that regardless (great essay, btw— nicely done and very helpful). KDS4444^Talk 22:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks very much for the fix. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Message for you

Hi, I wrote in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Description of the causes of a war a message for you and Dentren. Let's me know your answer, if any, there. --Keysanger (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Mediation Committee

Dear Chair of The Mediation Committee,

I am writing as an inquiry of assisting the Mediation Committee. This may include eventual request for nomination. I am wondering if you can provide me with any more information so that I may advance in my hopes to contribute to the Wikipedia community and specifically the Mediation Committee.

Sincerely, The Novac — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Novac (talk • contribs) 05:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you accumulate 1,500-3,000 edits doing regular article editing, then begin by working at Third Opinion, followed by working at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for awhile. Successful candidates for the Mediation Committee are generally experienced general editors whose skill in dispute resolution as been thoroughly demonstrated at other Dispute resolution forums. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

An Easy Decline

You have an easy case to decline. One editor wants the Mediation Committee to block another editor from editing an article so as to enforce his article ownership of an article about a family member. The case is also pending at WP:ANI to block the requesting editor on grounds of competence. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You're back?

yay :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, just grabbing a moment here and there while in transit. Probably won't really be active again until Wednesday. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Good to see you're back now :) I've done a fair bit of work on DRN if you want to take a look. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

My time this morning is going to be very limited and I've got some MedCom things which have to be done. I've commented on the header changes and reverted to the old header, let's discuss online. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Noticed and replied there. All the best. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Your essay

Can you point me to your excellent essay on dealing with unresponsive parties in a dispute? PS weclome back!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:DISCFAIL, and thanks. Feels good to have been missed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Interview for my dissertation

hello, My name is yilmaz. I am doing master at Sussex in the field of media and cultural studies and I am writing dissertation about Wikipedia as a commons but I need to have an interview with at least three (3) Wikipedians. I send you an interview form, which consists of twelve questions. The interview is crucial to analyse the main logic of Wikipedia and digital commons. I hope you will help me for this.

Best Regards Yilmaz

Thank you for considering me, but I would prefer not to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Uninvolved Admin

Hi TransporterMan, I would request you to consider giving your opinion, as an uninvolved Admin, on an ARCA discussion featuring me:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Imposition_of_an_Arbitration_Enforced_Sanction_against_me_by_Bishonen Soham321 (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not an administrator and, in any event, am not sufficiently familiar at this point in time with the issues being raised there to have an opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you please make a judgment on this dispute

The two other parties removed my contributions.

My argument is that the vast majority of the article is not cited either; therefore to preserve fairness to me, that large amount of un-cited content in the article has to be removed along with my attempted-but-removed contribution.

The alternative is to permit my contribution along with all the other pre-existing un-cited content.

Permitting all the other un-cited content, but rejecting mine because it's un-cited, is anti-egalitarian in a serious and fundamental way.

---

Here is the wikipedia page. [[1]]

I wrote the following paragraph under the article's 'Reception' section.

"With personal computers such as the Apple IIe, teenagers whose parents could both afford computers and understand their virtues, enjoyed a video-game experience that was of unprecedented quality; i.e. the graphics and complexity. This video game experience was strikingly superior and more sophisticated to that gained from the established, mainstream Atari, Intellivision, and CollecoVision video game consoles, which connected to TV's. Sports enthusiasts could buy a computer magazine from the neighborhood grocery store, copy computer instructions from the magazine into their computer, and use their computer to calculate the likelihood their favorite sports teams will win, based on the current sports statistics, which were input by the user. High school and college students could impress their teachers with term papers that were printed as opposed to hand-written - this gave them an undeniable advantage. Artists could use the system to create colorful designs. This generation of early personal computer consumers carried the intuitive insights of their computer experiences irreversibly into their adult lives, thus influencing the intellectual and cultural milieu which became fertile ground for the coming internet age."

I wrote the following paragraph under the article's section "Apple IIe card for Macintosh

"In the 1980's the Apple IIe was more popular than the Macintosh, the latter of which rose in popularity in the early 1990's thus becoming the main competing product against also-up-and-coming Microsoft Windows systems, which required IBM-compatible person computers."

The requests for mediation and our talk pages follow.

[[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]]

Nn9888 (talk) 07:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Verifiability Policy makes it clear that uncited material which has been challenged (and material may be challenged by simply being removed) cannot be restored in an article without having an inline citation to a reliable source, "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." (Emphasis added.) The fact that there is other uncited information in the article is no reason to introduce additional uncited material, see OTHERSTUFF and OSE for a full discussion. As to fairness, at Wikipedia we judge edits not editors. While that principle is usually used to prevent an editor's negative characteristics — bias, POV, prejudice — from being used to denigrate their otherwise-proper edits, it also works in reverse: You have no right as an editor to demand fairness; your edits either stand or fall on their own merit, not on your rights as an editor, and the policy here is that challenged edits cannot be made without a reliable source. Next, before you react to that by deleting large amounts of material from that article, be sure to read do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and be aware that while the policy I've cited above applies to removals and restorations of relatively small amounts of information that there is some considerable sentiment here that it should not apply to either removals of large amounts of information from a single article or to editors who systematically and routinely go from article to article removing unsourced information. Finally, please be aware that in saying what I've said here I am speaking only in my capacity as an ordinary editor, not as chairperson of the Mediation Committee or on the behalf of that Committee. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC) PS: I'm pinging @C.Fred and Closeapple so that they will be aware of this discussion. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for your third opinion on David Cote. I appreciate the time you took to offer a thought-out response. Cheers!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

You're very welcome and I appreciate the kind words. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Mail

You have one. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Back to you. --- TransporterMan (TALK) 05:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

New Mail

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

Sillyputty1967 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Aquitaine

Now that you linked prior discussion, the two editors are going back and forth in DRN without a moderator. It might be appropriate to collapse that discussion and to tell them to wait for a moderator to show up. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm kind of taking the case, working on a long response right now. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It kind of looks like one of the participants has a conflict of interest in that he appears to be asserting an association with the so-called republic. Can he find an article in Le Monde? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

COI is a conduct issue with which we need not be concerned at DRN. I have no idea about Le Monde, but a quick Google search reveals nothing even resembling a reliable source on either the English or French Google sites. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If you are mediating the question, can you please set its status to Open rather than New? My only comment about Le Monde is that it is a reliable source, as is Le Figaro. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Email Inquiry

Thank you for taking a look. My concern had been that the editor may have wanted to stop the DRN discussion, considering it to be Wikidrama, but would return to editing to insert "Judea and Samaria", the name given by Israel to a contested area that the Anglophone press refers to as the West Bank. Now that the article is in a compliant shape, and since dispute resolution is voluntary, I went ahead and did a general close, as you can see. Of course, compliance with a content guideline is not voluntary. If discussion continues, I think that we agree that it should be on the talk page, and can then go to an RFC if anyone really wants one (and one shouldn't be necessary). Since the West Bank is either in Israel or in Palestine, it is subject to WP:ARBPIA, so that any conduct issues should go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why so many conduct disputes about the Balkans go to WP:ANI rather than to Arbitration Enforcement under WP:ARBMAC, but that is an unrelated question. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Amon Carter Museum Edit-a-thon Update

The date of the upcoming edit-a-thon at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art in Fort Worth has been changed to October 10, 2015. An event page for the event should be forthcoming shortly. I'll be serving as the technical adviser for the event and your participation would be very much appreciated. I'll let you know when the event page is up. TransporterMan (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)

Third Opinion

Okay. Lesson learned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam Championship

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_120#Talk:Grand_Slam_Championship.23Section_removal thank you for introducing the WP:DISCFAIL guidelines, they look like good things to remember.

I have asked again that they respond to conversation, on the appropriate article's talk page. I have also brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Grand_Slam_Championship.

Do you know how long it is one has to wait before they don't reply before continuing with the procedure? I know they're regularly online. Ranze (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There's no "has to" but the wait time recommendations are in steps 5 and 6 of DISCFAIL. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment - Kids Company

Hello. If you have time I would be indebted if you could comment on reliable sources here. So far, the only editor to comment is the editor that I am locking horns with over the issue. I am grateful for his input, regardless. I think a third opinion would be useful. Thanks in advance. Selector99 (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Editathons

(From my talk page)

Hey, Montanbw, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring your offer over at Harej's talk page. You're right that the Amon Carter Museum of American Art has a substantial collection of Russells (and Remingtons) and, indeed, it was originally named the Amon Carter Museum of Western Art and from its founding in 1961 until 1967 only focused on art of the American West; it began expanding its collection to include 19th and 20th century American art in 1967 and was renamed to its current name in 2010. When's your event? Ours is October 10. Have you done one before? I've not and I'm feeling my way along on this one. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ours is August 31, see Wikipedia:GLAM/Montana History. I haven't done one before, either! (Blind leading the blind) but Rosiestep and Keilana have offered to help me out (from afar). I am organizing it under my alternative account, User:MontOther. If you ping me at either page, I'll get the message, as I have the accounts both with email access and all pages watchlisted. Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Xlinktool not working for 3O Service log

Looks like 3O Xlinktool page has not been working for quite some time. Any ideas on how we manage Wikipedia:Third opinion/Service award log? If I'm not mistaken, at least two more editors should be eligible by now. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The tool seems to come and go. (Aside: Ever since those tools were moved, edit count, page stats, and other tools have been a royal PITA. I'm not a coder so I have zero insight as to why that is, but I've seen scads of people griping about it and nothing seems to be done to fix it on a long term basis. Most recently I saw — I don't remember where, but it's been in the last few days — an appeal for additional maintainers for those tools, which I presume is because they keep breaking down and sit there with no one to fix them.) Until it starts working again we may have to just put the awards on hold or do it the hard way using the edits by user tool, which is also linked on the 3O history page but which is having its own set of fits and starts currently; if you use it, it will redirect from an old tool to a new tool, but drop the username and pagename in the process; be sure to insert the page name as "Wikipedia:Third opinion" exactly as to spacing, punctuation, and capitalization or you'll get a false negative. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm on a partial Wikibreak hence the delay. Okay, this works out too, I've found one eligible editor and another one nearing. I'll post on the log.

@Erpert: would you be interested in maintaining this with us? There's one 3O Service award to be given out, would you do the honours? Just take a look at the log. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't really have the time right now. :/ Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I've moved this to the project talk page for future ref. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for the info about refiling for mediation. To be honest, based on what you said in your message on my talk page, I don't think it's worth bothering to refile now. I maintain that my position is not wrong in this case, but I can't be arsed arguing any more. The fact is, two editors who were hardly active on football articles in the past have come along and seen something they didn't like, and now because no one from WP:FOOTY was interested in a lengthy debate, their opinion is sticking. They've misinterpreted the sources at every turn, and there's no way I can compete with that. – PeeJay 13:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, PeeJay2K3, for the clarification. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

My life may have just gotten more interesting...

User talk:Doniago#Adminship - Someone's made a horrible, horrible mistake. :p DonIago (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

An important message

Hi TransporterMan.
      As you have probably anticipated, I feel I must disagree with your statement in the Miss Cleo RFC.  But I want to be sure that you know that I do not take any of it personally.  (Just as I hope you don't take personally anything I said in my comments about your statement.)
      We have exchanged many pleasant messages, and you have helped me by providing answers to my questions and offering advice.  I want all that to continue.  And I hope you feel the same way.
Richard
Richard27182 (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

No offense of any kind taken, but thank you for the concern. This is the kind of collegial discussion upon which Wikipedia is based and it's the way that things are supposed to work. Keep after it! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
      I'm glad that everyone involved in the Miss Cleo RFC has been so civil.  I've heard these things can sometimes get quite nasty.
      Also I have a quick question.  When someone gets a long term or indefinite block (there seems to be a lot of that happening lately), is it ever considered inappropriate to place a message of consolation or encouragement on their talk page?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It happens all the time, but as to "appropriate" I'd just suggest that you may want to think about what you're saying about yourself in doing so. That, of course, depends on exactly what you say. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
      Considering you have changed your primary choice in the Miss Cleo RFC, I would agree with you there is not much point in continuing to debate the merits of option (A.).  (And I think that will save us both a lot of editing time!)
      I would like to pursue a little further the matter of writing a message to a long-term/indefinitely blocked editor.  In doing so I would only write to an editor I'd had some contact with.  I would never even remotely hint whether or not I felt the block was justified; in fact I would never even mention the block.  I'd basically just wish him well and express a hope to someday see him on Wikipedia again.  (And if he'd ever helped me in some way, I'd express my appreciation.)  And I'd limit myself to one message (per editor).  Assuming I strictly limit myself to these constraints, is it unlikely I'd cause myself any problems?  Thanks for your time and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why there'd be any obvious risk in that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Jurassic Bark

(Please excuse my blatant copy/paste from Doniago's talkpage)
I've just been dealing with an email over at OTRS regarding Jurassic Bark and it's season/episode numbers. I've popped some information I've personally found on IMDB (which I verified with other sources because I don't always trust IMDB) into the article. I've noticed you've reverted any changes referring to S05EP02. Now, I don't normally get involved in Futurama or TV series articles, so I may be missing a trick! Anything I should know? my edit to article. Cheers :) Samuel Tarling (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Doniago has replied so feel free to ignore/delete this message :) happy editing! Samuel Tarling (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded at Doniago's talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What happens next?

Hello there! Looks like Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/British Pakistanis won't get a mediator. What should be done after (if) the case gets rejected? Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You can try awhile longer at DRN, but it's probably going to take an RFC. I know one was tried at a related article, but since every article stands on its own one is probably appropriate there, too. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution, my summary was correct

You have been mistaken, when reading this disscussion I had checked if there was a need for a general close and there was a reason, Fourm Shopping: Unless you have misunderstood my summary, it is right. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 20:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right and my clarification was in need of correction and I've done that. I apologize for the misstatement. Best regards and thank you for wanting to help with content dispute resolution, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. RMS52 ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

response to Patalexander

Wonderfully clear response--don't be surprised if I copy some of your wording some day. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and be my guest, please. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

On asking your note in DRN

Hello! You've should've probably seen my ping for you to make a note in a DRN case. Did I do the right thing? Or do you think I should've handled this in a different way? Your two cents is much appreciated. Thanks and regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 03:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Done and closed as failed. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Making DRN more effective?

The way it is, DRN seems ineffective. Perhaps there are ways to make it more effective or get rid of it entirely???? It seems to close too easily, even if only a technical error in filling out the request. Too harsh and bureaucratic???? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN in its current form, which is indeed very structured, evolved from previous forms of dispute resolution (DR) which were, generally, just free-wheeling, unsupervised continuations of the discussion from the article talk page. That generally resulted in them being dramaboards where absolutely nothing was accomplished, resolution through discussion at the article talk page was distracted and impaired, and the very few people who were willing to work there were quickly driven away. The DRN system, which is similar to that in its sister DR boards, insures that the disputes which make it through the intake processing to being handled have at least a chance of being resolvable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

drn notice help

Was the notice on my talkpage formatted incorrectly? An editor left it for me. I simply clicked on "section edit" without looking closely, and answered. I didn't realize it takes me away from my own talk page and placed me on a template page. I didn't want to do that. Is that the way it's supposed to work? Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Beats me. Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what happened... Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Article Dispute

There appears to be an extremely biased and unfactual editing of the Manchester United-Liverpool rivalry page that has been allowed to stand due to an edit dispute ended last month that was conducted by several fans of one of the clubs which allowed for an extremely biased and unsatisfactory edit. I have raised my concerns in the talk section of the page yet even when I have proven information in the article false and inaccurate, I've gotten no response as to whether I can change it and any change I have made has been reverted. Here is a summary of my gripes with the page:

"The most recent major edit of this article is ridiculous. It is full of unfactual informartion and convenient ignorance of the truth to heavily favor Liverpool. For starters, any other subsequent rivalry page on wiki uses total honours to count trophies as that is the least subjective form. For some reason, this one uses a highly subjective "major honours" system which puts Liverpool top of the trophy count when otherwise United would have won more. Conveniently such a trophy measure was NEVER used when Liverpool led United outright in honours in years past. The source is based off the unreliable and poorly maintained FIFA website, which despite not counting the English Super Cup (Community Shield) as a major trophy, it counts the Dutch and French Super Cups as such as well as REGIONAL tournaments for a few other clubs. This hypocrisy makes the source unreliable and not suitable for use per wikipedia's terms on source credibility.

The author then states that UEFA's website list 44 trophies for liverpool and 41 for United as they dont count the club world cup. This conveniently ignores that UEFA dont count that tournament as it is not in their jurisdiction but this is never stated. It also doesnt add the term "major" to the trophies as that changes the meaning entirely from overall trophies, which United have more of (the fact United have more honours is totally ignored throughout even though its a totally valid point in comparing historical success. It is then totally fabricated that United dont list the intercontinental cup on their website and list 40 major trophies. These statements are blatant nonsensical lies as the United website does show the aformentioned cup and merely lists 62 honours. The word 'major' isnt even used on the website!

Continueing on, the author uses sources from 2004 (which he doesnt quote properly and conveniently ignores the talk of total honours in the same source and only mentions the part about "major trophies") and quotes inaccurately from other sources (using the telegraph's major trophy article to reference the belief in the "major trophy" count when the article clearly shows lower division titles as major honours, making it unclear what their criteria is.

With such an illogical, unfactual and nonsensical piece of work currently submitted as the main edit for the article, I move for it's removal and a far more just and accurate portrayal of reality to replace it."

As a resolution cannot be agreed on the article, I seek a third party to come in and settle this once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davefelmer (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

To choose a form of content dispute resolution, see the options listed at the Dispute Resolution Policy. I will note that there was a very recent case on, I think, this same point at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 120#Talk:Liverpool F.C..E2.80.93Manchester United F.C. rivalry.23Honours Count.3F where I think a partial consensus was reached, but not a full one. In light of that, some editors may not be prepared to go to dispute resolution again and may decline to do so (which is fine, since participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and never mandatory). Note that since more than two editors are involved that Third Opinion is not available to you. Please sign all your talk page posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

War of the Pacific

Thank you for closing as stale. I had tried to answer, but had to ask what parts of the paragraph were considered to be OR, and didn't get an answer. This dispute has been going on forever, including an inconclusive thread at DRN. I recommended formal mediation, in addition to saying that I would try to provide a third opinion, but I don't know if they will respond. I think that only one of them wants outside advice, and outside advice is voluntary unless you file an RFC or go to a conduct forum. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hallo TransporterMan, @Robert McClenon:, @Dentren::

Dentren must substantiate his claims correctly. I can't do it for him and any person who wants to help needs the reasons why the tags are there. The editor who tags the article has to explain why he does it. If he doesn't do it, I will bring the case to the ANI. --Keysanger (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The claims are substantiate and Keysanger is just refusing to address them and trying to draw attention to me and no to the issue in question. I recomend Keysanger to comment the question and not the user. Dentren | ^Talk 07:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Fiksu notability

Hi there - on talk:Fiksu you said you didn't want to step in yet, but pointed out that the links provided to establish notability didn't work. That was my mistake, I included a pipe in the markup that was breaking the links. If you did have the chance to take another look, that should be a little easier now that they're fixed. Snackwell (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kevin Folta

Hey TransporterMan, I got a question. I wasn't pulled into the mediation request, fortunately, but I have some interest in the matter and want to see it resolved. But I think there is a problem with the basic question, "Is a lack of evidence of any connection between Monsanto et al and Kevin Folta evidence of a lack of any connection." Because as one of the articles cited in the biography argues, there was a connection, and even Folta agreed; the question is whether it was "close" or not. The article is from Nature, and is thus pretty authoritative. So I guess I'm asking you what I can do with this pearl of wisdom. I could ping Jerodlycett of course--oh wait, I just did. Thanks, and good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That case has been rejected due to the pending ARBCOM case. If it is refiled after the conclusion of that case, then feel free to join in as a party or list your information under the "Additional issues (added by other parties)" section or both. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Chaco Discussion

TransporterMan (TALK) Thank you for your civil words! I'm an "old" author, speaker, etc etc, so have an extremely thick skin when it comes to criticism. So no harm/no foul. In fact I look upon all the comments as a great learning experience for me, and out of this I think we will find some common ground that will improve the page.Steven C. Price 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven C. Price (talk • contribs)

Revisiting David M. Cote

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for the relevant 3O about a month ago. Since then, Philafrenzy has yet to respond to the opinion. I don't want to lose the traction we've made so far; how would you recommend we proceed?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest BRD; if the dispute continues after that, first, try talking it out again (the bold edit may well restart the discussion) and if there is no resolution, try some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to reach out for another opinion before BRD; as I have a paid COI, I'd prefer to refrain from being bold in this instance.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Rana vs Lithobates

Am sorry I have never seen whats happening in that mediation. I have successfully mediated an issue like this before here and after I saw the request on the Reptile Portal page I thought I would try to help. But this has become insane. After this is over, I would like to discuss being a mediator, but best wait till later. Thank you for your teams efforts. Faendalimas ^talk 14:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick word of advice about becoming a MEDCOM committee member. Candidates for the committee have ordinarily proven their abilities at dispute resolution by working at one or more of the other dispute resolution forums here at Wikipedia first, with experience at the content-focused fora (3O and DRN) being more valuable than the conduct ones, though experience at conduct DR or at such semi-DR places such as AFD, BLPN, and RSN can serve for part of that as well. Having a fairly high edit count — there's no magic number but something over 6,000 edits would be common, I think, with 10,000 or more not being unusual — to show your general experience at Wikipedia helps as well, as does a clean block log and, even with a clean block log, no edit, conduct, or other wars or acts of questionable temperament or judgment of one kind or another during the year or two prior to nomination. In the past, virtually all members were administrators but that has changed in recent days with several non-admins being elected (and I'm the first non-admin who has been elected by the committee to be chairperson, which shows the degree of that change). All said, I'd suggest trying your hand, first, at 3O and after you get a couple of dozen opinions under your belt there, then volunteering at DRN for awhile. (And I'll see you there, since I work at all three places.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I split my time between WP, Wikispecies where I am an admin and Wikidata. My total edits between the 3 are over 4200, but certainly not 6000. I will take the rest under advisement. Thankyou. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 15:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Need some mediation help at Talk:Proportional representation

Hi TM, there is an ongoing content dispute between two users on Proportional representation which is in need of mediation. Not sure if you are interested or if you could point me to some Admins/Mediators who would be interested, but any help is appreciated. Thank you, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of attempting mediation on the article talk page (which is not to say that I've not done it or won't do it in the future). It doesn't give enough separation between the mediator and the disputants and it's much too easy for the mediator to become just another disputant or, much the same thing, be perceived by one or both parties as just another disputant. (I think that the key to making it work, though I've never actually done this, is to not do it unless you get all parties' express agreement for you to do it and for the rules under which you intend to conduct the mediation.) Another downside to doing it there is that you also do not get the "mediator powers" granted to volunteers at DR venues under the Control of mediation policy (see the first footnote). For that reason (and particularly in this unruly case), I think you'd be better off recommending to them that they take their dispute to DRN, RFC, or MEDCOM (though it might not get a mediator there, we're kind of full up right now), but not 3O because they're likely to bounce it because you're already there as a third-opinion-giver. You could file the case for them at DRN or start the RFC (or first of a series of RFC's, if needed) on their behalf. One or both might not choose to participate at DRN, which would kill that attempt, but with an RFC they've either got to participate or be ignored. Other possibilities might be to request full protection for the article at RPP and/or to just let them slug it out on the talk page until one or both give up and go away. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll see about moving them to DRN then, and if that doesn't work I may seek RfC possibly combined with the RPP. Thanks for the help, Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Writing to former editors

Hi TransporterMan.  In reply to a past question, you've told me that it's OK to write to an indefinitely blocked editor (assuming I'm very careful about what I say). I would like to ask now if the same is true of writing a brief message to a very recently retired editor. I don't want to commit any faux pas, let alone any no-no's.
Richard27182 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Retirement banners often mean very little; many people who post them are back in hours if not days, so there's no problem in leaving a message for them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Miss Nobody (American murder victim)

I need help saving Little Miss Nobody from deletion. Urgently. LMN is Arizona's Boy in the Box. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Assistance needed

I've tried to remove the (now concluded) U.S. Grant case from the Mediation requests page but have only succeeded in changing the status to awaiting a moderator. Not sure what I've done wrong :-( -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The entirely right way to do it isn't entirely clear. I've taken a shot at it and let's see if the bot brings it back. If it does, we may have to get AGK to tell us how to do it right. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN Coordinator - New Month!

Congratulations on finishing a term of being the DRN coordinator; your next term from October 2015-September 2015 has started. I have updated the DRN coordinator page here. On that note, since the month has ended, how are you planning to perform the monthly analysis of DRN results for September? Ping me when you reply. --JustBerry (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustBerry: The only coordinator to ever do the analysis was Steve Zhang (now Steve Crossin), whose idea it was and which never took off. (Steve was, at the time, a Wikimedia Fellow doing research on dispute resolution and it fit into that task.) I'm not planning on doing it at all and if you want to take it off the coordinator page, be my guest. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC) PS: I went ahead and removed it and also made some additional updates reflecting the fact that we no longer have a notification bot. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

 Works for me --JustBerry (talk) 23:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

A question about contributing to project pages

Hi TransporterMan.
 I have a question about making contributions to articles. I know that it's OK for an editor to make a unilateral contribution to a regular article (although there can be a greater risk of being reverted than if the matter had been discussed first with other editors). My question is is it even allowed for an editor to make a unilateral contribution to a "Wikipedia:" (ie, a project page) article (such as Wikipedia:Consequences of sock puppetry)
Richard27182 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to do so, depending on the kind of page it is. Strategically it's often a good idea to propose on the talk page first if the page you're editing is a policy or guideline, though editing without discussing first is acceptable, and noticeboard and similar pages work more like talk pages than like essays or policies, so the talk page guidelines apply to them and you shouldn't remove or modify anything that anyone else has said, and there may be another exception or two that doesn't come to mind at the moment. Remember that essays like the one you mention frequently don't mean much: they have no binding or precedential effect and may well be just be the opinion of one or two people, though some of them can be influential and can eventually be promoted to guidelines or policy. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Fort Worth Circle article

Thank you for the tips on how to proceed with the Fort Worth Circle article. Very helpful information. I will touch base before taking the article live.Papernpencils2015 (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Good deal. Glad I could help. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Lost Password from Amon Carter Editing Session

Hi Dave, I edited an article last Saturday @ Amon Carter in FW, but it has not been published. I have tried to get into my sandbox, but evidently I lost my password.

I have tried to get Wiki to send me the password, but it says I did not leave an email address. So I asked for a new password, but Wiki seems reluctant to move/link where I can get a new password.

If I cannot access my sandbox, the expanded article will not be published.

Arghh.

Anything you can do to assist would be most welcome.

Kevin— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CDA1:A380:62FB:42FF:FEF1:DDA6 (talk) 16:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Two non urgent questions

Hi TransporterMan. This is not at all urgent. But whenever you get the chance, please check *this* and let me know what you think. Am I missing something or ignorant of something I should know? Or would it be OK for me to add that information to the article?
An unrelated question: I know that RfC's can be (neutrally) promoted on the Village Pump. Is the same true for ordinary discussions on regular talk pages?
Richard27182 (talk) 08:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External link in "Crawford Dunn" article to Dallas city website

The reason I wanted to link outside to the city's website is because it illustrates Dunn's logo he did for the city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sillyputty1967 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Edit war

I had invited User:Vettelisthebest to discussion, but he didn't responded [6]. Corvus tristis (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)