User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 4

Hey
[Moved from my user page to my talk page, TM]

you deleted a article that i published live but all that was on there was the name and the template completely blank. I have been banned multiple times from Wikipedia but my suspension is over, please help me make this time around more enjoyable sir. I am really looking for someone to help me publish an article but this website has plenty of links please check it out and collaborate with me on notability. JO has shows, has a mixtape, and is all over the web in different forms which are not all self published, in other words his work has spread virally. If you search "JO" "4 The Hustlas" Rough Cut Freestyle Flow Rap Underground Rapper Unsigned Hype "Josh Eastman﻿ Enterprises" JO "Josh Eastman" Ent J.E.E. Mixtape Hip Hop mix tape hiphop "hip hop" battle rap music youll find several things he has over 5000 views on his youtube channel, has several artists, DJs, even record exucutives like this one from JIVE on twitter. PLEASE TAKE a minute to go to JO's Google Profile if you havnt already and look at the links. I am 448th on the Rancho Santa Margarita Hip Hop Charts for Reverb Nation. I Know there is a way to help me get this article ready to publish please help. I believe that the links and article are notable, where does someone draw the line between indie/independent/underground music and unnotability for wikipedia. I think i deserve a shot. I am an aspiring musician and this legitimizes my movement, when a fan who heard my album or song and want to look me up the "JO" wikiarticle will provide them with an easy to read bio and info regarding who JO is and does with supporting links. — User:174.67.209.82 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur with the answer given to you by Mike Rosoft at User_talk:Mike_Rosoft. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your signature
Hi there. I just noticed the markup of your signature. While you are of course free to choose your HTML, I would suggest this alternative markup that produces the same result:
 * TransporterMan (TALK )

Not only is it shorter than your current markup, it also avoids the problem that your username is harder to identify in the editing window. Regards  So Why  08:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion. I'll implement it. I'm not much of a coder and all help is appreciated. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 16:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nairobi water shortage
Someone was trying to make an essay into a Wikipedia article, but the problem here is that it's a POV propaganda piece, which doesn't fit in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, there may be water issues in Nairobi. Anyone got a reliable source or two? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 16:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense
I've declined your speedy on Within No Time because it isn't nonsense within the CSD meaning. That is for 'rtrtrfkjvld' and stuff that even a Surrealist wouldn't regard as usable. It's quite a restricted sense. This stuff is not encyclopaedic, fairly certainly essay - but it's coherent. As I can't think of anything better, I'll prod them. If you can think of a CSD that fits, go ahead... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine, your call, of course. After rereading it I suppose that it could just be poor writing by an editor whose English skills are marginal, but ... wow. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie)
Not to be a nudge, and I do understand your original nomination of a pretty crappy stub created by a newcomer, but in expansion and souring of the article, Film Threat is indeed considered a reliable source for film, and that is an important point that needs to be undescored, as several editors at the AFD, yourself included, seem unaware of this.

When you wrote "Film Threat has been rejected as a reliable source almost always", you were unintentionally and unfortunately incorrect. And your proffered diffs do not support your contention, and in fact did the opposite:
 * -Your diff 1 shows how an editor found Film Threat articles to support a keep of an article after which the nominator withdrew that one film from his multiple nomination.
 * -Your diff 2 shows an editor offering a Film Threat review of one film as "proof" that the filmmaker being discussed at that other AFD was notable.
 * -Your diff 3 shows my own comment about finding a Film Threat review of a puppet-infested film article that had been speedy deleted before I ever saw it and before the AFD was closed, and included my own observation that the review had only hours before become available online, and if more such reviews come forward the article might be worth reconsidering.
 * -and in your diff 4 one editor accepted it and another had an unfounded opinion that it was a fanzine... which it is most provably not, as it has editorial oversite, reviews and articles by accepted genre experts, and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (poinedly meting the criteria we use to determine what qualifies as a reliable source).

Film Threat is and has for a long time been considered a reliable souce by the majority of editors and through long standing consensus (Andrew Lenahan's sole and unsupported opinion notwithstanding). ever considered an unrelaible source. It is indeed a reliable source for film articles, and has been confrmed as such several times at both Project Film and inquiries at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

With respects, I hope others do not mind the TLDR of my responses and instead see the suitability of the two in-depth significant articles and the one book source used (so far) to cite the article. We have a full-length review of the film, a full-length interview of the filmmaker, and a book citation for required confirmation of the fillmaker's use of Roberts as a selling point... all accepted WP:reliable sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some diffs of my own that support the wide consensus of Film Threat being a reliable source for films... some even as early as 2004 (predating my own arrival on Wikipedia by years):                         and there are many, many more.  It can be seen that even in discussions of film articles that were deleted, Film Threat was acknowledged as a suitable reliable source.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've replied at the AFD discussion page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
FYI Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

burying any hatchets...
Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie) was no doubt a difficult close. For myself, the article hovered slighty over the pointed edge of being just notable enough for Wikipedia, while for some others it does not quite make the cut. A no consensus was perhaps the best call, and I expect that after clarification of guideline elsewhere, it might return to AFD in a few months. At the very least, and in the interim, our having turned a very sorry stub into a somehwat better sourced and encyclopedic article serves the projects and its readers. I hope we can work together to clarify those guidelines that are sometimes seen as grey, as I found our discussion quite helpful.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No hatchets to bury and no hard feelings. I agree that the guidelines could be improved, but I suspect that we'd go in different directions on the issue. If you'd like to propose something, however, let me know and I'll take a look. I'm concerned that we're coming to a point where because of the breadth of coverage on the Internet certain things - commercially-released record albums and films come immediately to mind - are almost notable by default. I don't think that's the way it should be, but I've not yet come to a conclusion about what the best solution might be. I have the same concern, BTW, about athletes. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Aryan Cargo Express
Contested your speedy deletion because it adheres to WikiProject Aviation/Notability, particularly to the clause "the following types of topics will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify... *All airline companies". Please be familiar to policies and guidelines before hastely tagging an article for speedy deletion. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Was not hasty and the policies do not support your position, see my response on the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I had to get offline suddenly and I'm glad to see that the article was not speedily deleted in light of the one source which you provided on the article talk page. I do take serious exception, however, with your admonition, above, that I should, "Please be familiar to policies and guidelines before hastely tagging an article for speedy deletion." As you admitted on the article talk page, there was no policy or guideline which controlled this particular issue, but only an essay whose strongest claim for authority is a template which says that it "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion" (emphasis added). Moreover, the use of the terms "meets" (on the article talk page) and "adheres to," above, in reference to that essay is an apparent attempt to give the false impression that it has some authority beyond just being an opinion. I would not presume to tell you what to do, but I am personally disappointed to see such a level of discourse from a person who has been entrusted with sysop tools. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Los Hermanos Castro
Yes, Los Hermanos Castro were on the top 10 Billboard in Puerto Rico. Go to www.gualbertocastro.com & click on Los Hermanos Castro to read the true backgorund of Los Hermanos Castro & the listing for the top ten Billboard & other awards & such. :) Chaos4tu (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

E. B. White House coordinates
Hi. I think I found the house and farm. See the article talk page. Of course I wouldn't dream of adding anything without the consensus of the full photo-reconnaissance team.  Kenatipo   speak! 18:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That cookie tasted good!


Lumdeloo has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Lumdeloo (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Another go
Have a read of this that I  wrote recently, and when you  feel  ready, let  me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding talk and talk
Hi It have been a dispute on about the Galling article and I feel that something is very wrong about the whole conversation!! Please look at the galling discussion page and read the whole conversation and note the dates, I’m sure you will give me the credit of doing exactly as I have been told and followed Wikipedias rules.

talk hides his agenda behind formal complaints which in my opinion are of his own construction. There are also some strange conversations whit talk both on the Galling discussion page and on the Users talk page, he also hides his agenda behind a curtain of disinformation. If you don’t believe me look at my edits in the galling article that only improve the article and also, my report was cited by another user and later vandalized by someone. The result of the vandalization also was write protected!!..... so I couldn´t change it back.

If you read it you will find that I have only contributed to Wikipedia but are severely punished for my idealism by these perpetrators. --Haraldwallin (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can
Hi. :) If you get a chance, would you mind offering feedback on my last questions and actions at User talk:Moonriddengirl? I think this is a common issue that we will be encountering more and more, how to talk about close paraphrasing issues, and I'd really like to pull together in addressing it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Close paraphrase

 * Thanks for the prompt and you not tagging it for deletion. It was clearly an error from my end. Hope to work with you on other issues. Thanks once again. -- CrossTempleJay   →  talk 18:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Filipovic
Hello Thank you for your work, but somehow a user deleted my side only because i made a mistake ( i fixed it but it was somehow to late), now can you tell me how i can contact the deleting administrator to get my page back? Thank you ErwinFilipovic (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The sysop has already responded on your talk page. Click on his talk page link. Your page draft still exists, however, at User:ErwinFilipovic/Ing.E.Filipovic_Co._%26_Holding_LLC and you ought to work on it there before taking it into mainspace. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Haraldwallin
I left a message to him yesterday, but he hasn't responded (or, for that matter, made any new edits whatsoever).

If he does reply in Swedish, don't hesitate to leave me a message in my SVWP talk page. - Tournesol (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do, and I'm watching his talk page. Thanks again. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan.
Hi TransporterMan,

I noticed you have deleted my article DinMorErEnNarhval for Vandalism, which I find not true at all. Quite a lot of my friends has no idea what DinMorErEnNarhval means and therefor I thought it was smart to make a Wikipedia article so they could look it up. I hope you will reconsider your choice about this.

Kind regards Emil Clausen — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvianceEU (talk • contribs) 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I nominated it for deletion, but I did not delete it since only administrators have that ability and I'm not an administrator. Even if it was not vandalism, it was clearly inappropriate for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not for new stuff. See What Wikipedia is Not and WP:SCRABBLE for a good example. I'd recommend Facebook, MySpace, or your own website to promote this term. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Glass
I have removed the CSD tag you placed on Ruth Glass. It was scarcely a "blatant" copyvio, as the CSD rationale requires. If you exclude the lengthy book title then there was in fact virtually no violation at all and what may have been considered a violation is easily rephrased. The CSD copyvio template states that it should only be used in the event that there is no free content capable of being rescued. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Every sentence is a close paraphrase of the cited source. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The dupe report indicates zero? - Sitush (talk) 20:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The dupe report is a blunt instrument which can be defeated by a close paraphrase, as is the case here. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * So why not tweak the article further? Templated messages to an established editor for such a short article are also a blunt instrument. I was fixing it. The source, by the way, is itself a close paraphrase of the ODNB article. Honestly, this is overkill. It could have been resolved with a simple, polite request, such as "please can you take another look at the article which you have just created as I think it is too close a paraphrase of one of your sources." - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While I would ordinarily agree that templating a regular isn't the best thing to do, copyvios have legal implications and are not supposed to be here even temporarily, e.g. while being fixed. That's the reason that the procedure at Copyright problems has you blank the article, unlike most other deletion processes which keep the text of the article exposed so that it can continue to be edited while the deletion process is proceeding. Just like unreferenced negative BLP articles, legal threats, and some other exceptional cases copyvio articles aren't supposed to be fixed, they're not supposed to be here at all, ever. Moreover, all you were doing is furthering or softening the close paraphrase, not rewriting the article from the ground up which is what's needed to move away from the copyvio. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ruth Glass problem: There is a little question for you here: User_talk:Msrasnw. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC))


 * You did not give me much of a chance, nor the article creator for that matter. The policy does not in fact say "blank on sight". It says blank if it cannot be fixed. The thing was created barely 10 minutes before you CSD'd it, I found out because I happen to watch the creator's page (not sure why because I haven't actually looked at it in weeks). I've rewritten entirely articles of 90kb or so in size, so dealing with a tiny little thing like this would have been a doddle. I have requested that an admin with copyright experience looks into it, even though there is a formal process that will decide at some point in the next week. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Copyright_problems does not say blank if it cannot be fixed; it says if removal is complicated then tag and blank and, if one cares to do so, then "In addition to nominating potential copyright infringements for deletion" (emphasis added) attempt to fix the problem on a subpage of the original page. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

More on the Ruth Glass problem: There is a reply for you here: User_talk:Msrasnw. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Ok I will await some action from someone. Given that you like bridges and I guess other similar such things (and to show no hard feelings for your unfortunate dislike of my little article) here is a gift link: Anderton Boat Lift. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC))
 * PS A better gift link would have been Middlesbrough Transporter Bridge because Ruth Glass's was on The Social Background of a Plan: a Study of Middlesbrough which was the next bit to be added to the Ruth Glass article. It was the Afd for Max Lock that led me to Ruth Glass in the first place. Anyway enough best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC))!


 * Dear TransporterMan, this is just a little note to let you know I have raised by concerns about my little Ruth Glass article's alleged copyright problems at Copyright_problems/2011_May_19. Hope that is OK and best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Speedy deletion declined: Shawn Okpebholo
Hello TransporterMan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shawn Okpebholo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been edited since it was tagged and is no longer a copyvio. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Johnny Prill wikipedia page.
May 30, 2011. Hi TransporterMan! I did a quite a bit of editing on the Johnny Prill page and would appreciate it if you could take a look at the page and see if we can remove the top header which states: This article is written like an advertisement. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpmusic124 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Creating pages in user space
Hi, sorry for creating those pages in the main space. Was not my intention. Please let me know how to create pages in userspace. Thanks! Woody

Lwoodyiii (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded on your user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply
RJaguar3 &#124; u  &#124;  t  02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Dan Calhoun, Eduardo Paulino, and Erik Morrison
Hello TransporterMan. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Dan Calhoun, Eduardo Paulino, and Erik Morrison, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Logan Talk Contributions 04:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh. I don't know why I bothered. Despite policy and guidelines to the contrary, all professional and quasi-professional athletes are in practice inherently notable (or at least inherently notable to the point that most editors don't care to put up with the drama that necessarily results if you try to say otherwise). — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Long Island Sound (band)
Hi, I declined your speedy deletion request for the above article because it did assert importance, and is covered in a third-party reliable source. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Source was added after I made my speedy request; disagree that anything else in that article asserted importance. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Herzan Wikipedia page
Hi TransporterMan,

What was it about the Herzan Wikipedia page that deemed it worthy of deletion. The entire page provided a history of the company and how it came to be. I thought providing information to those who are interested in learning about various topics, was what Wikipedia is all about. Please explain to me why you believe that page should be taken down. I just want to provide a historical reference for my company.

Thank you,


 * Though it may not all apply to you, please see User:TransporterMan/Advice_to_New_Users. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

my first page is very quickly deleted..
Sirs

I had created a page "Vorapublicity" for the information & introduction of my own company.

have i made any mistake/s regarding policies?

if there is.. then i m sorry for the same

please guide me if i can create any article about my company or not.

Thanks Tejas.vora (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Though it may not all apply to you, please see User:TransporterMan/Advice_to_New_Users. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Social Networking Websites Blocker
Hello TransporterMan,

I just noticed that my article (Social Networking Websites Blocker) is marked for deletion. This is not actually a software. It works on a localhost system same as the MVPS hosts system for blocking ads. Instead of ads, this one will block social networking websites.

Also the 2nd search result on google directs to the project page ->

I have edited the sourceforge project page and to direct to the wikipedia page of it. You can see it here -> The "socialnetblock" is a short term for this project and that is why I had added a redirection.

What else is required to publish the page of this project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.106.50 (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Though it may not all apply to you, please see User:TransporterMan/Advice_to_New_Users. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
I understand now. I will just wait for it to get famous and then post it on wikipedia. I have deleted the content on the article.

Please remove the article Social Networking Websites Blocker and socialnetblock too.

Regards, Auzern — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auzern (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Response from Haraldwallin
Hello,

I've received a reasonably lengthy response from Haraldwallin. I hope it's reasonably clear what in the text below is Haraldwallin's point of view and what are my in-line comments, but basically I have translated everything as-is except that I've re-written his first person narrative to a third person format, replacing his "I" with "Haraldwallin" and his "you" with "me" since he was addressing me in his response.

- Tournesol (talk) 18:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Haraldwallin hopes that I am honest/sincere and represent the real Wikipedia (not sure exactly what the last part is supposed to mean) and that he assumes that I will stick to facts rather than throw accusations around me.

He writes that he has contributed to several articles with text and images, for instance galling, Wear, Stress (mechanics) and Adhesive wear. He feels that these contributions have improved the articles considerably. Since he had added a lot of information, he wanted to add references and used his report from 2008 (another possible interpretation is that he in 2008 added a reference to his thesis/report) since he did not know this wasn't allowed. Moreover, Wizard 191 has earlier presented false accusations about Haraldwallin being one of several writers behind his work (unsure whether Haraldwallin refers to the Wikipedia article or to the thesis/report), such as images etcetera. If there are other people that claim to have written Haraldwallin's work, he would like to know who they are. Since Haraldwallin has done everything by the book, everything should be restored to the original state. Furthermore (but I don't believe this addresses the current case) it shouldn't be of useful for Wikipedia to hide correct information due to the number of citations in a report/thesis? If so, it would be impossible for anyone except well-off people in major universities to contribute to science. Is this kind of elitism, information monopoly and distortion of reality something that Wikipedia should be part of?
 * 1) Wizard 191 removed the reference Haraldwallin had added and asked him to ask someone else to read the aforementioned thesis/report and have them judge whether it could be used as a refeference, which he (Haraldwallin) did.
 * 2) Someone else (from Haraldwallin's answer, it isn't clear who) read the thesis/report and added is as a reference to the article galling.
 * 3) Then someone (again, not clear who) got angry and vandalized (Haraldwallin's choice of word) the reference to Haraldwallin's thesis/report and write protected the valdalization.
 * 4) Since Haraldwallin's work could have been damaged/corrupted by the valdalization, Haraldwallin wanted to correct it, which he did.
 * 5) Then all these strange accusations came from Wizard 191 and Bob house 884.


 * The problem appears to be that Harald wants to use his own thesis as a source in the Galling article and that the policy here at en.Wikipedia won't allow it; he appears to believe that it's some kind of vendetta against him personally or to discredit his personal expertise when in fact it's just an objective application of Wikipedia policy. en.Wikipedia does not accept anyone's personal expertise on a subject just because they're an expert. For their expertise to be used in en.Wikipedia, it has to have been published in a reliable source, and a thesis like his is simply not accepted by en.Wikipedia as a reliable source except in some extraordinary circumstances (see Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_97 for a full discussion).


 * I think there may also be some issues which may have arisen from his prior use of that thesis in some other article which went unchallenged (or perhaps it was that it was inserted in Galling but went unchallenged for a long period of time) and he doesn't understand that consensus can change, that things can go unchallenged here for a very long time without implying that they're acceptable, and doesn't understand that the fact that one use in en.Wikipedia doesn't mean that that it's okay in some other article (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS).


 * If that's correct, the real problem isn't that anyone is vandalizing or harassing him, it's that he's fighting against en.Wikipedia policy. He's welcome, of course, to try to get those policies changed, but the way to do that is to propose it at the policy pages, not to fight against its application at an article, and certainly not to use terms such as "vandalizing" and "harassment" against editors who are simply applying policy and trying to educate him without any personal animosity or campaign against him.


 * The ultimate problem, and the one that cause me to ask for Swedish-language help, is that I don't know whether he understands what I've just said and is lashing out because he doesn't like it or whether he doesn't understand it and will accept it (even if he doesn't like it) once he does. Or I could have completely misunderstood everything. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the strange thing is that Tournesol|Tournesol didn’t tell me, that he was going to translate my text from Swedish to English.

It´s a violation against me to make a improper translation whiteout telling me.

Of course it’s offending when people do fake and false interpretations of my text.

Why did TransporterMan to ask for Swedish-language help, when the translation from Swedish to English is fake?

I’m not offended by the policies of Wikipedia, because I demonstrably followed them.

Consensus may change, but it’s not consensus to remove or vandalize something without cause.

TransporterMan conclude that Harald Wallin didn’t include his theses as a reference so why remove when the reference doesn’t violate the policies of Wikipedia? --Haraldwallin (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Harald, I know of at least three people, myself included, who have been trying to help you, not harass or harm you, and you've attacked us all. I've had enough and will not attempt to interact with you or assist you further in the future. Good luck with your editing, but I fear that your lack of understanding of en.Wikipedia policy or refusal to accept it, whichever it is, is going to turn to frustration and disappointment in the future. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do you do strange!! and quite degrading analysis whiteout the facts? What’s the hidden agenda?
If you are looking for the truth, please answer these questions True=T or False=F.

1. User:Tournesol didn’t translate User:Haraldwallins Swedish text to English, word for word. True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

2. Have User: Haraldwallin followed User:Wizard191 demands about asking someone to incorporate the reference, True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

3. User:Wizard191 wrote, "My recommendation is that you add a note to the talk page of the article stating that you think it would be a good reference, but that you want others to review it first because you are a bias entity, in that you contributed to the work.", True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

4. User:Haraldwallin have done 318 edits to the Galling article and the majority of the edits improved the article, True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

5. User:Haraldwallin included pictures to the Galling article, True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

6. My reference was included in the galling article at 17:54, 3 November, by User:Thumperward (Filling in 1 reference using Reflinks), True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

7. User:Wizard191 wrote, “you have pretty much taken ownership of the article 3”, True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

8. User:Wizard191 wrote, “After looking through the history of the article it doesn't appear that you've taken ownership of the article. So I'm cool with dropping the COI tag. Wizard191”, True/False?

TransporterMans answer:

--Haraldwallin (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See my, above. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

-- Well!! Thanks for your help. I really appreciate all the nice things you have done for me the last few weeks.

But honestly, I didn’t know that referring to facts was attacking? In what sentence exactly, did I attack you? I feel your interpretation of the word “attacking” is connected to your personal needs and the strenuous facts I presented.

You share this tendency for personal interpretations with other people with similar attitude to bureaucratic rules and the will to satisfy the seeming interest of the common good.

But please, just answer one question. Is the Galling article improved after you removed my report as a reference and does your action hinder the spread of vital information?

In this case I honestly fail to se the advantages I’ve been given, by you and your attendants.

Feel free to enlighten me.

--Haraldwallin (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * See my, above. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tep wireless
Hi There, I wanted to enquire about the deletion of Tep wireless. I registered Tep as I thought it was relevant to include a company called Tep.

What was wrong about the inclusion? — Tmendozagutfreund (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot say for sure because I did not delete it, I just nominated it for deletion. The actual deletion decision is made by a sysop and they can do it for reasons other than those in the nomination. Though it may not all apply to your case, you might get some guidance from my User:TransporterMan/Advice_to_New_Users. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Glen Campbell genre discussion
Hi TransporterMan, you provided a very appreciated third opinion about the genre discussion on Talk:Old Home Town. However the other editor has proceeded to ignore your advice and I'm again facing an edit war. I would like to ask for your advice on the next step I should take. Many thanks in advance. Lumdeloo (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, someone else already stepped in and helped us out. No need for further action. Thanks. Lumdeloo (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I couldn't help, but I was traveling from June 14 until yesterday. Glad that you got the problem resolved. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please re-open http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football.2FFully_professional_leagues.2C_Ayr_United_F.C.
Note my block was rescinded and please re-open the dispute resolution, thanks PorridgeGobbler (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Northwestern Law Seal DRN
I have discovered and posted new information re: DRN. Could you please comment at your convenience? Thanks. IvyLaw ( talk ) 03:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Having been informed that a user self-identifying as Janet Morris was indef-blocked last year, and noting substantial similarities in the editing behavior of that editor and Guarddog2, I've concluded that the current dispute resolution discussions are no longer adequate to address the underlying problems. You may or may not wish to participate; I thank you for your attempts so far to help resolve the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Response
Here is my response to you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Removal_of_part_of_comment_on_User:talk  Thanks, Mugginsx (talk) 18:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Strad TalkBack
Hi TM, I thought I should probably let you know about this thread, seeing as I mentioned you. Also, thanks for keeping things ticking over at the DRN. Ciao —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Strad. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh....
Thanks? But I'm somehow unblocked now and that was sitting in my talk page. A lot of people will think I'm still banned.Blackgaia02 (Talk if you&#39;re Worthy) (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The block notice says that it was for 24 hours and gives the start time, so anyone concerned about the issue should be able to figure it out without much effort. In any event, the rules say the block notice and rejected unblock request must remain on your talk page. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Death of Caylee Anthony: Alleged defamation by WP:RS
Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Death_of_Caylee_Anthony:_Alleged_defamation_by_WP:RS section titled: Death of Caylee Anthony: Alleged defamation by WP:RS

I can no longer find this. Can you locate for me so that I can respond to any further discussion on it? I have just spent one hour looking for it. Thank you for any help you can give me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * It's here. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Transporterman. Mugginsx (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

MedCab
Hey there. How do you feel about Mr. Stradivarius, you and myself working on the backlog of MedCab cases to clear it out? You seem pretty good at finding solutions to tricky disputes, so I thought it might be something you'd be interested in. We could collaborate to try and improve MedCab at the same time, too. What do you think? (Note, I have about ~3500 pages on my watch list, if I miss your reply then poke me.) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Steven, I've never worked at MedCab but if I can help, sure. Just let me know what you have in mind. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban for coconut oil
Hi,

I've left a question, essentially for you, here. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Renato Nato (musician)
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Renato Nato (musician). In my opinion, being a member of a notable band is a sufficient claim of importance to satisfy criteria A7. The article still has notability and verifiability issues, so if you still want to delete the article, please consider an alternative deletion process. Monty 845  14:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just for the record: the claim that he is a member of that band was added after I tagged the article and I would have removed the tag myself if I had seen it before you did. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

please help
Re. Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 6, the AE has not been closed?Chesdovi (talk) 11:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It was and the DRN discussion was then reopened and then re-closed by Mr. Stradivarius as being outside the scope of the DRN noticeboard, as he explains in the archive:"If this discussion was limited to the original article in the complaint, then I would attempt to find a compromise here, but there seems to be a history of dispute between the two editors involved, and the general issues seem to span a wide range of articles. For these reasons I think this dispute is likely outside the scope of this noticeboard."I concur with Mr. Stradivarius in that I don't think that any amount of dispute resolution is ever going to cause you and Debresser to come to agreement on this point. What you need to do is to try to get other editors to take part in the discussion about it so as to form consensus (and consensus cannot be claimed from mere reverts and edits; after an initial edit and revert consensus must be established by discussion, see the Process section of the Consensus policy). While there are other processes which can result in such discussion, the one designed to do so is RFC. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarifying that. Chesdovi (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

BATNA
Thanks for your comments on BATNA on the DRN. Apparently DRN isn't the right place to ask for help on this sort of situation. I felt it would be useful to have some uninvolved, neutral editors to look in on this discussion -- what is the right place to 'recruit' such people? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * While it's possible to attract multiple neutrals at most dispute resolution processes, in the vast majority of the cases it turns out to be one riot, one ranger. The only wholly-legitimate place to ask for multiple neutral editors to be involved is request for comments, but if you can make do with just one, Ravensfire who has joined the discussion at BATNA, is a neutral. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Closing DRN threads
Hi TransporterMan, this is probably my fault for not telling anyone that the process had changed, but when you close DRN threads, could you remove the HTML comment that says ? This comment is made from subst-ing the Do not archive until template into the thread when it is created, and it stops MiszaBot II from archiving the thread until the date shown. At the moment this is set for 30 days after the thread is first posted at DRN, so if you leave it in the closed thread will hang around on the board for a month. I've put some instructions up on the DRN header now as well. Thanks —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Will do. Had no idea such a thing even existed and will henceforth watch for it. Thanks and best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lanka article and the indefinite protection
Hi. Thanks for the interest you've shown regarding the dispute[s] in Sri Lanka article. I strongly urge you to watch its talk page in the future as well, due to often wayward and non-resolving discussions that need a 3rd party mediation. You know that the article is currently fully protected on an indefinite basis. I think I am the editor who has been worst hit by that decision because I was involved in a major edit to improve the article. This is how the article looked like when I visited the page on 17 August 2011. You may agree that it looks pretty ordinary for a high traffic-country article. Since it lacked references and most important facts about the country, I began a large scale edit that resulted in the current state. The discussion on the disputes about Sri Lankan Civil War happened separately and I avoided it to focus on the other sections. Due to Intermittent protection, I worked on a separate user page to continue editing. Now the editing is almost complete and the new version looks like this. Note I've avoided editing the disputed "Modern Sri Lanka" and "Sri Lankan Civil War" sections, which I intend to edit after reaching a consensus with the other established editors. But before starting that discussion, I wish to restore the current article by the version on my user page. The main difference there is that I've largely expanded the "Culture" section, adding more important details and doing some reorganization. There may be issues with prose and wording, but I don't expect the expansion to be controversial because the section contains mostly undisputed details. If the article was free to edit, I could've made the expansion myself but the indefinite protection makes it absolutely difficult to wait until the article is unprotected. Can you please enlighten me of the way forward? This is not a single edit that can be asked to be done by an edit request. That's my problem. And I'm willing to make any adjustments if required. Thank you. Astronomyinertia (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the article has been unprotected, I made the edit that I wanted to do. But I'm willing to hear your feedback. Thank you. Astronomyinertia (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your confidence in me, but I hope you won't mind if I decline. I'd prefer to limit my involvement with the article to the things that I do as a neutral rather than becoming a regular editor or adviser. If I review your edits it looks like we're working together and I'd prefer to maintain my neutrality so as to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Thank you. Astronomyinertia (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call on the DRN close for the Sri Lankan religion stats. I was pretty shocked to read Distributor108's post essentially ignoring everything that he didn't agree with.  It's well into WP:IDHT territory and at that point DRN isn't helpful.  I don't think formal mediation will help much either given his focus on a dataset that everyone else sees as flawed.  *sigh*  You win some, you lose some.  Hopefully everyone else things we did a decent job on this one.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 *    Thank you very, very much. It's nothing compared to what you do, so I'm very honored to have this come from you. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, well done. It's been an honour to work with both of you lately, and I look forward to doing so. On a related note, I've commented at the MedCab talk page on possible ways to move forward, and would appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Best, Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  08:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too, Steven. I truly appreciate it and truly enjoy working with you and Strad. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moorabbin Archery Club
Hello, TransporterMan … During Articles for deletion/Hoddywell Archery Park we missed adding which was created by the same author several months earlier … FYI, I have stuck a Prod on it, so you may wish to bookmark it, or even add a Prod-2. Happy Editing! &mdash;  05:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

3O removal
Transporterman,  you removed [| this dispute from 3O],  don't worry, I didn't undo you. I read your reason on the actual page (the disputed page) and I saw the link to your essay. I disagree (but don't worry, I won't undo your removal). A third voice either expressly for or against the change would be beneficial to establish some kind of consensus. Right now we have 1 user for, 1 against, (this third doesn't care, so the dispute is literally between two people). The 3O page says nothing about it not being a "tie breaker" voice, in fact quite the opposite.

As I said, I'm stating I disagree, but I won't un-do your removal. Thanks for the post on the page! @- Kosh ► Talk to the Vorlons ►  Narn (Loyal Bat Squad Member)  -@ 12:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to see you took my suggestion and filed an RFC. It's the best choice for what you're trying to do. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Lethal Weaposn Mediation Results.
Sir,

I am asking you to return to the NLW Medaition you recently closed; They’re stalling implementation of your results. You declared the section a violation of neutrality, and still gave something back to them so they could keep the propaganda in place. Now they’re trying to hide behind “acceptable sources” even after they’ve been presented. That I don’t understand how to put a citation in does NOT change the fact that it is here. A. J. REDDSON


 * The only issue involved in the last mediation was whether the Amnesty International report could be used. That issue appears to be resolved, so there is no need to reopen that mediation case. There may be a new issue for which you might desire mediation or some other form of dispute resolution, but that would be a new case not a reopening of the prior one. (On a separate issue, would you please mind signing your posts with four tildes - ~ - so that your postings will be time-stamped. Not having the time stamp can make it very difficult to sort out the flow of discussion.) Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanx

 * Thank you very, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 12:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for backstopping me
at El Rito, New Mexico. It was a smash and grab article that I did to create blue links elsewhere. Also, I did find something disturbing on your user page, so your assumption that anyone could (or whatever) still holds true. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome; I like NM (being a believer that when Good Texans die they go to NM) and like finding and adding coords (I've added several to Ancient Puebloan sites in Wikimapia), so yours was a natural for me. Thanks for getting the joke, too. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Joke? Most folks in NM believe that most Texans want to get here way before they die - See "Texas invasion of New Mexico" 1836, 1844, 1848, 1863 and more, depending on one's definitions. (some dates have been changed to protect the guilty). But I am not a true local, so don't concern myself too much with that stuff. Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab
FYI, the rejection of mediation by a party at MedCab doesn't automatically mean a case should be rejected because of that (though it makes things difficult). Just letting you know. Steven Zhang <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I thought that it should in that particular case. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah. On a side note, I've decided to go ahead with my changes to MedCab (as discussion has died down and at present MedCab is awfully quiet.) Also, regarding your content ArbCom idea, I think the basics of it are good, however the resolution should be binding for a period of time (say max 1 year with a review at one year) but with amendments or lifting of the case possible if something significant happens. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added some stuff in the next-to-last bullet point about that this morning. Did you see it, or is that what you're referring to? — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I did miss that point there. I think if we get anywhere (if anyone bothers to comment on the idea) it will probably not be a formal committee type process, but we shall see. Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  21:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)