User talk:Nbound/Archives/2013/July

DRN inquiry
I've received an inquiry about Battle of Kursk, but only intended to offer a comment there. I'm also dropping this same note at Smileguy91's talk page. Just FYI. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Accupunture
If you want to give your opinion as an editor, please do. It's your right as a WP editor. However, to give your opinion as a supposedly uninvolved DRN moderator was way out of bounds. Your role was to foster discussion among the parties, while keeping out of the debate yourself. Otherwise, you become just another party and weaken the usefulness of DRN as a tool to resolve disagreements. Because of stunts like this pulled by other DRN volunteers before you, I already have a low opinion of DRN. A good rule of thumb is to pull out if you find yourself forming a position in the debate, even if it is a "compromise" position, and NEVER to post anywhere except DRN on the matter, most especially not on the article talk page or the individual parties' talk pages, except for bland routine notifications. Don't do DRN any more damage to its reputation by becoming involved. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I didnt give any opinions :S. Stating something is a reasonable compromise and appears to have more support is an observation (If it were upto me, the article lead, hell the entire thing, would be heavily sceptical of the entire practice). As I stated at DRN I am only an editor, my opinions have no extra weight, and I was only identifying who I was there (as opposed to random guy #20234463398) for the benefit of those who did not take part in the discussion, and to alert those involved that the discussion would closed (as is usual practice once discussion reignites on a talk page). At no point did I state my opinion had any extra weight (infact I've only stated the opposite), anywhere. Please do not put words in my mouth, or inflate my contributions, as a way to grind an axe against DRN . Even without all of this, as the DRN discussion is now closed, I am entitled to an opinion, just like any other editor. Though I will be choosing not to chuck in my 2c on the topic out of my own volition. -- Nbound (talk) 06:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did take a position: "The above proposal by brangifier looks like a reasonable compromise" . And you did indeed preface it with the words "I am the guy from DRN". IN THE SAME SENTENCE. I did not put any words into your mouth. YOU did. And whether you intended to or not, you most certainly did damage the reputation and compromise the utility of DRN.
 * As I very clearly said, if you want to participate in the discussion as an interested party, please do, as is your right. Your opinion is welcome. However, do not do so as "the guy from DRN". When you are acting as a DRN volunteer, or identifying your self as such, you have no business becoming an interested party. It makes no difference whether the DRN discussion is closed or not. The success of DRN as a conflict resolution tool depends on the detachment of its volunteers from the conflict itself.
 * Last of all, saying that I have an ax to grind against DRN was uncivil and violates WP:AGF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * AGF was first violated when you posted this accusation on my talk page. You claimed I was damaging DRN, amongst several other things, without seeking out clarification of my comments at all, rather than assume good faith, there was an automatic belief that I was acting contrary to the spirit of DRN, I would have gladly let you know exactly what was intended by my statement if asked, we all know the internet isn't always clear as to the exact intent of statements as much of the nuance is removed from sentences. Yes, I stated I was the guy from DRN - I AM the guy from DRN... this means nothing other than what it says... what does it mean as far as authority goes? nothing... claiming I intended it to mean anything else is putting words in my mouth :( As I have stated only the complete opposite, at any point. There is also quite a difference between saying I support an opinion/sentence, and saying something looks like a reasonable compromise and has wider support, stating something is a reasonable compromise does not confer support, it is an observation that there is positive progress occurring in the thread. As I have stated above, the sentence as interpreted by you doesn't even fit my personal opinion on the topic at all! Why I'd give an opinion supporting something I personally completely disagree with is something that can only be answered by you, as I can assure I'd you its not something Id be particularly keen to personally support! :P. I do apologise for the axe grinding statement and have redacted it above accordingly, it was an overreaction to claims I was hearing (I felt a little offended at the time). I hope you can also see that the original claims may not have been intended as you have interpreted them, and we can both continue to work/collaborate amicably in any future encounters, on DRN, or otherwise.  -- Nbound (talk) 06:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've not looked at what Nbound did or did not do, but DRN leaves open exactly how a volunteer is to approach a case listed there and merely rendering a neutral, third-party opinion is an absolutely acceptable practice (even if that's not what Nbound did). DRN isn't WP:MEDCOM. (I know: I work at both places.) Mediation is an acceptable manner in which to approach a case at DRN, but it's not the only way. Even in mediation, once the parties have presented their positions it's also perfectly acceptable for a mediator to evaluate them and present his/her evaluation online if s/he thinks it will move the mediation forward. Indeed, evaluation and criticism is one of the primary techniques of mediation, especially in the real world. The value of such an opinion comes from its neutrality, and it is the reason that the Third Opinion project still exists: it works. I've given well over a hundred 30's (yeah, I work there, too) and somewhere around 75% of those disputes ended after receiving the 3O. Personally, I agree with DV when he says, "When you are acting as a DRN volunteer, or identifying your self as such, you have no business becoming an interested party." I generally agree with that and I don't become an editor of articles which I do DR upon for that reason and vice versa, but that doesn't mean that I feel I have to refrain from giving an opinion when I am doing DR. There's a difference, and that difference is neutrality. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Full disclosure: I'm not a saint and I have on occasion become involved in articles where I did DR. Such instances are by far the exception rather than the rule and I had some kind of demonstrable good reason to deviate from my ordinary hands-off standard. (And the truth be told, I almost always came to rue the decision to do so, but that's another story.) — TM 18:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input User:TransporterMan :). I guess I should make it more clear for DV, incase I havent done so. I was not attempting to become an interested party either, whether or not I received his message, I would not have posted further in that thread, it was purely intended as an observation (and an observation that required the DRN case to close - as they normally do when there appears to be positive progress being made elsewhere). Whether or not I explicitly stated I am the guy from DRN, I still would have implied it when I let users there know the concurrent case would be closed :). My take on opinions is broadly similar to TMs, they arent unwarranted, but they definitely have a time and place... if I do give one, I will gladly own it :) [sometimes you are even asked for one]. Giving an opinion at the point of this complaint would have likely stifled progress, rather than help it. Not sure what else I can add at this point, so I wish you all a good day :). -- Nbound (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN
Hi! For the record, that's a sock/dynamic IP block evading - one that a rangeblock won't completely stop, unfortunately. --Rschen7754 08:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Any roads in Sydney needing photos?
Do you know of any articles that require photos (including those that need to be updated)? Planning on being in Sydney tomorrow but only there for the day. Bidgee (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll survey a few of the articles and get back to you... you may want to consider posting this on WT:AURD aswell, but I'll leave that completely upto you as I assume you dont want too much of a workload :) -- Nbound (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've noticed you've posted on WP:AURD so I'll reply there. -- Nbound (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Wolverhampton, music
Thanks for your response at DRN. I was hoping for some help from a more experienced editor or administrator. I do not understand their explanations for the edits, and the removal of a complete paragraph of text and the supporting picture. Do they make sense to you? Would you have viewed it as suspect vandalism? As a relatively new editor, if I enter into a discussion on the article talk page I feel it is the blind leading rhe blind. I have no vested interest in reverting the text again, it was not my original contribution, except for helping maintain a comprehensive and current location article. The editor, if indeed it is one, not two, also removed the person from the List of people from Wolverhampton article which suggests a targeted and personal viewpoint.

Once again thanks for your timely response. Cheers, Keomike (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I have asked both IPs on their talk page to contact you in regards to this. I would have asked them to prove that it was policy. Of course if it doesnt matter to you too much, and no other editor picks it up, you can just leave it, and if he is wrong, another editor will likely re-add it at some point. :) -- Nbound (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Seconded! –Fredddie™ 15:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!
Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 11:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review
Thanks for your message but I'm not an experienced reviewer, in fact I've never reviewed one, so I don''t think I can help.&mdash; Rod talk 12:18, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong list, my mistake :) -- Nbound (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Tasman Highway

 * Re: User_talk:Wiki_ian

Hello, I apologise if I’ve made edits/reverts that impede the quality of this article. I only intended to undo my edit (wikilinking Hobart Bathurst Street to launceston’s). You’ve raised some interesting points and will reply where I can.


 * I am aware of the A3 occupying multiple roads, as does the A6 and A10. I’m not sure about notability of possible Launceston street articles, and will therefore leave for others to decide.


 * I wasn't aware the Brooker Highway is signed A6 from the Railway Roundabout, but I can't say I'm surprised either. I do know that prior to AusLink, Federal Funding for the Brooker Highway only extended to the Burnett Street traffic lights. The last section of the Tasman Highway (between Liverpool street and Davey/Macquarie streets) is relatively new in the scheme of things and occupies what was old rail yards and part of the old Hobart Railway station. With this in mind, it is quite easy to understand the Brooker highway's A6 designation up to the roundabout. If this particular topic interests you, get your hands on a copy of the Hobart Area Transportation Study. It may be hard to acquire - I only know of one in the State Library of Tasmania and a library in Canberra (not sure which one).

I hope this reply is of some use to you. I also apologise for the manner in which I have replied - posting on my own talk-page doesn't feel right. Regards, Wiki ian 15:31, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I’m not sure about this article, but feel we definitely need articles for the state highways route numbers, particularly those which travel on multiple roads (eg. A3, A6 and A10).

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murray Valley Highway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria (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) 11:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

M2 Metroad/Motorway
I've uploaded some of my photos, though only from my iPhone (my DSLR had a lens issue) and has some reflections. Some files my need to have the names corrected and categories created. Bidgee (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

- Nice work, Im sure quite a few of these will be useful; both now, and into the future, on the articles for those roads :) -- Nbound (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Majura Parkway
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Majura Parkway you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- 11:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Freeway
The signs still read F3 Freeway. Once they change it can be reflected in the F3 section220.233.75.230 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats not the only issue with the rewrite. But all new signage already uses Pacific Mwy, examples are available online. These signs arent street signs either. :) -- Nbound (talk) 08:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)