User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 5

City of Dunedin Choir and St. Paul's Cathedral Dunedin pages
Thanks for offering third opinion etc. on these pages.

The issue involved is a hot one in this small town. I think that the content re dismissal (St. Paul's page) should stay - the story made front page, full feature headlines in the Otago Daily Times (the primary newspaper in Otago, New Zealand), complete with photo, and divided the community. The particular reference / section in question on St. Paul's page is better supported than most of the content therein, meeting Wiki's standards of external relevance and significance (front page headline with full colour photo in a major newspaper usually qaualifies).

Other independent mass media content occurred at the time, including radio headlines on two stations that I am aware of, and discussion, but cannot (obviously) be linked to Wiki.

Re the Dr. White controversy section - that content is the work of another user. I do consider its removal to be censorship of an issue that had profound effects on our community as a whole, but I have no direct knowledge of details on the matter, and am not the person to improve the content.

Issues re living persons: If this is a problem, I am quite happy to change the section title in question on the St. Paul's page to "Dismissal of Director of Music" with no name mentioned, and simply a link to the relevant article. I want to follow Wiki's standards in this, but am very concerned about certain parties doing their best to censor history and current rather nasty events in our community (they have done so elsewhere, in other forums), and their using Wikipedia as yet another tool in their attempts to do that.

Overall, both the St. Paul's and City of Dunedin Choir pages are poorly referenced as a whole, and one might argue that the COD Choir mpage lacks significance enough for Wikipedia in the first place although, as a participating member, I'd prefer it to stay!

Thanks for your third party opinion, but I still feel that this content is still appropriate and significant enough for wikipedia. I have returned the content that was deleted, as well as adding a POV warning to both pages while the discussion / debate continues between myself and "SummerPhD". Thanks UltraZit (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)UltraZit


 * Wikipedia uses coverage in reliable sources as its screening method to decide on whether to include or exclude information since it does not have a paid, professional board of editors to decide whether or not material is to be included. As the verifiability policy says, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact that the city was divided over the events is irrelevant unless it can be documented through Wikipedia-reliable sources (and "reliable" means something specific in reference to Wikipedia, not just the dictionary definition of "reliable"). There could have been riots which burned down half the town, with dozens of casualties, and that event could not be reported in Wikipedia unless it could be documented through Wikipedia-reliable sources. Without that documentation, this is just a ordinary company firing an ordinary employee. That happens every day in thousands of companies and is not of sufficient importance to be mentioned here in an article about those companies. The single reliable source may be, barely, enough to allow it to be included but it is of so little importance that in my opinion it would be giving it undue weight to include it in the St. Paul's article. Even if the motivation of those who want the material removed is to censor history, as you put it, the existence of that motivation does not justify the inclusion of material which does not meet Wikipedia's standards and policies because, as stated in the What Wikipedia is Not policy, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Removal of such material is not censorship, it is merely upholding the editorial standards of this encyclopedia. By continuing to restore material when it is removed you are engaged in an edit war, one of the definitions of which is the introduction or reintroduction of material which will be reverted by another user. (And note that the three revert rule is only a bright line rule; an edit war can exist even if the three revert rule is not violated.) You stand a chance of being blocked or banned if you continue to do so. Restoring material in violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy will definitely get you blocked or banned, so please cease doing so immediately. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

C-84 Confidential
I've just noticed that back in April you told me off for introducing an article on C-84 Confidential. I introduced no such article; in fact, I've no idea what C-84 Confidential is nor whether it should have an article or not. Regards, Manormadman (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my apology and strikeout on your talk page. Best regards, and apologies again, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for your advice I appreciate it. There is still allot of bullying going on with that article I will wait a little bit and see if there is any resolution to the certain editors reverting it back to the Scam x3 version no matter what. It seems to be still going on full force and there are allot of people trying to make the article better. If it can't have legitimate edits (which is the spirit of Wiki) I will continue as you advised. Thank you!Zoomedia9 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Description from Third Opinion Page
Hi, I have a question about why you removed the description. The directions call for one. If you did not think it neutral - and I did - why didn't you trim it rather than remove it? -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay - I see where it says just a line or two. But that said, why not trim the description to one or two lines rather than remove it entirely? I can do it if you don't want to. What do you think?KeptSouth (talk) 13:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also the parts that say:
 * No discussion of the issue should take place here – this page is only for listing the dispute. Please confine discussion to the talk page where the dispute is taking place.
 *  Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants.
 * Your extended description would be fine on the article talk page under a "Third Opinion Request" 3-dash sub-subsection, but we prefer to keep the request description to the absolute minimum needed to identify the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, after writing the first comment here, I did see where it says just a line or two. I also see that where a description continues for more than a line or two, there is the potential for one of the parties or a third party arguing the description is not neutral and thus starting a dispute within a dispute. Thanks for the advice about adding the description to the talk page. I'm going to leave it as is for now rather than repeat all that. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Velvet Revolver Discussion
I am fine with my addition being removed by you or someone else at wikipedia, but I'm not going to let another user decide what gets posted or not without at least asking first and giving a good reason. I'd also like to point out the real problem here was not what I added but that someone deleted it without giving a reason, leading to an edit war. I don't want to be involved in an edit war, but I'm glad you pointed out that the other user wasn't the one to decide whether it stayed or not. Thank you for your handling in the matter. MillerCrosses (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see that you've deleted the edit. Thank you for being reasonable and considerate about this matter and for working to improve Wikipedia. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
I apologize for the edit warring. Really, I should have known better. Thanks for helping resolve the dispute also! Regards. HrZ (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

American Staffordshire Terrier dispute
Dear sir/madam, please return to the dispute you provided a valid opinion regarding before. The folks participating and I believed rallied toward this are being unreasonable in my estimation. I appreciated your opinion before and I believe it is needed again.Wvguy8258 (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail :)
Steven Zhang The clock is ticking....  21:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you thank you very much for the award:-) I will take it as a way to continue improving my mediation skills!

Thank you!Curb Chain (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Village pump (policy)
Hi TransporterMan. You participated in Village pump (policy), which was snowball closed. A subsection of the discussion has been created. Titled Village pump (policy), it pertains to Request close and Category:Requests for Close, which were created after a discussion at Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78. I have posed several questions there and am interested in your thoughts. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Award!

 * Thank you very, very much. I truly appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Other process pending?
Er, you deleted it only moments after it was filed. My post also sought to address the behavioral aspects of the issue, and not just content (for which there is an RfC in place). Coupl d you please quickly revert, or explain why you shouldn't? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the content disputes are foreclosed for the moment by the RFC, that only leaves the conduct disputes, which is not a proper subject for DRN. As it says in the instructions, "Though conduct issues sometimes arise in the course of content disputes, this noticeboard is not for resolving conflicts which are primarily conduct disputes." You also said in the listing, "I am likely going to address that user's (Barsoomian's) conduct via another noticeboard." That's the proper approach and you can take the conduct disputes either to WP:WQA if you just want other editors' opinions or to WP:AN/I if you want to seek sanctions. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for getting back to me so quickly, TM. While I did indeed say that I was likely to address the concerns elsewhere, I then saw that in the first para of DRN:
 * "As discussions are often begun on inappropriate forums, e.g. Admin Noticeboard/Incidents, this forum is designed to better assist users in receiving the specific support they need."
 * I thought I would wait to get some feedback on where, precisely to post about the behavioral issue. I don't want to post all over the place and appear to be forum-shopping. If I am referred elsewhere in the course of getting feedback via DRN, then I have been transparent in my concerns. By closing it, you unwittingly give credence to any accusation of shopping that might arise. Yes, the content concerns are the primary issue, but the behavior of the other user have been inexcusably uncivil, and I have been tempted to pull out of the article simply due Barsoomian's OWNish and uncivil behavior. Please allow DRN to do what it is tasked with doing - acting as an initial landing point for growing concerns. Please self-revert? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but conduct matters simply aren't within the scope of DRN except incidentally as to conduct matters and even then if you'll look back through the DRN archives what you will find is that there have been any number of disputes listed which had substantial conduct issues listed in addition to the content issues but that only the content issues have been addressed by the mediators in any substantial way. The conduct issues have been largely ignored except when they carried over into the discussion on the DRN page and the only response has then been an admonition from a mediator or clerk to either stop the disruption of the DRN discussion or the discussion would be closed. Part of being a landing field is to act as a referral point (as is stated in the "Purpose of this noticeboard" section of the DRN instructions). I would have referred you to WQA and ANI in my closing message if you had not said you were already taking the conduct issues elsewhere, but I would have closed your request nonetheless. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Maybe letting me know what you were planning on doing instead of just closing it might have been helpful. Had I not gone back to tweak the post, I'd have never known it wasn't even being seen. I haven't seen WQA have a lot of positive results, so I guess it's off to ANI. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi. Thanks for your participation, and objectivity. Pardon me for asking you this, but I've noticed a certain amount of inefficiency and "cracks in the system" when I use various noticeboards to get help on certain matters (For example, I believe that because I updated my initial question on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, that no one responded to it for two weeks because they glanced at it, saw the second post, and thought someone had responded to it, not actually noticing that the second post was also by me), so I wanted ask: Are you sure people at the 3O board will know that your initial intervention was retracted? Are you sure they won't go to that talk page, and at a glance, see your presence there, and the mention of "3O" in your post, and then leave? I'm not an expert in 3O, but just wanted to make sure someone else enters the discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see that those potential problems, for which I again apologize, did not materialize and that a 3O has now been given. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Please Reply
Sorry to bother you, but you haven't replied to my reply to your post on my talk page and things are getting ludicrously hot and bothered at Protect IP. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

PTI Manuver Issue.
Well I hate it but that matter is closed. FWIW, I did use alternatives but got sandbagged.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The &#39;&#39;Weekly World News.&#39;&#39; (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet
It cut out on me, can't access Gmail. Send me an email (updated my WP one temporarialy to my work email.) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  03:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case on hold
In Mediation Cabal/Cases/13 November 2011/Usage share of operating systems You've noted that the case is on hold. I failed to find a description of this action. Could You please explain the practical meaning of this hold? Does it pose limits on ongoing discussion? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Please see my response in the Administrative notes section of the mediation page. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank You for clarification. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wagons and bicycles
Hi! I just read your essay on wagons and bicycles, and I think it's brilliant. How about adapting it into a Wikipedia-space essay? I think it will be seen by a lot more people there, and I'm sure there are many new users who can relate to it. Let me know if you're willing to take the essay plunge :) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 04:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I might do that. I've moved a copy to my #5 sandbox to work on; feel free to have a shot at it, too, if you like. Thanks, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I've now taken it live at: Wikipedia,_bicycles,_and_wagons. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Much appreciated, and tasty, too. Many thanks, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Impressed
Hi TransporterMan,

Just a quick note to say thanks for your participation at WP:DRN. I was hugely impressed with how balanced your analysis was, and how you managed to make provide pertinent observations and helpful guidance without taking sides. This is a very difficult task in the I/P discussion area, and sadly is extremely rare!

All the best, Oncenawhile (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome, and thanks for the thanks. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What must I do after a stalled discussion?
Hello! You closed the discussion on spirulina at the Dispute_resolution_noticeboard given that the discussion stalled, which was clearly the case. What is the next step in this case if both parties basically stand their ground? It's my first "dispute" as I mostly edit non-controversial subjects. Where should I go? Thanks ;) Rdavout (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Signatureshort
Template:Signatureshort has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

DRN: Insanity defense
If you read the "what other steps have been tried" you would have seen that there was reference to a conversation on Doc_insanity's page. If you had looked in the history of the talk page you would have seen Doc_insanity's removal of about 4k of wikitext where Sleddog116 attempted to resolve the issue. Could I convince you to revert your "No Talk page discussion" closure on this thread? Hasteur (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I did that before closing. It appears to me that discussion was about a different issue, not the one currently on deck. I am, however, going to address the current issue with the listing editor as Doc insanity is correct that the two references are not relevant. I've not done it yet because I was reading them. Thanks, however, for the head's up. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * TransporterMan, I still don't understand. You wrote "the length of his commitment has nothing to do with the length of sentences which he (they) might have received had he been committed for them". I am looking at the subject of the length of the commitment. Incarceration is incarceration wither it be jail or "hospital"


 * The length of the psychiatric commitment has EVERYTHING to do with the insanity plea. Doctors determine what sanity is, and it is arbitrary. One doctor can find a person sane, where another doctor would find insanity. There is no way to prove or disprove sanity. If a mentally ill person commits a crime, the psychiatrist can be held liable for releasing them to the public. It is then in the psychiatrist interests to keep innocent OR guilty people behind bars for a longer period of time. Haines and Yoder served more time behind bars than what a sane person would have received found innocent or guilty. The punishment (psychiatric commitment) is Cruel_and_unusual_punishment as it is unlimited in time. This all comes from having the idea of "sanity" the (insanity defense and psychiatry) as a higher value than the process of the judicial system where FACTS of evidence judge the case.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've responded at length on your talk page, but let me note here that while it may be true that "Haines and Yoder served more time behind bars than what a sane person would have received found innocent or guilty," they did not do so as a result of using the insanity defense (though it's not clear in the Haines article what actually happened in his case) and that's what the article is about and the reasons that these articles are not suitable for that article, though they might be suitable for use in the article on involuntary commitment. See your talk page for more discussion. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Issues with Oncenawhile during Move Discussion of History of Pottery in the Southern Levant to History of Pottery in Palestine
Oncenawhile has seen fit to add a comment to the vote of a user who supported moving the article back to History of Pottery in the Southern Levant. I did the same to another contrary comment in response, to which Oncenawhile added another comment in response to mine, rehashing all of the points he had made earlier (it also must be said that his response wasn't overly relevant to my actual comment.) He also went to the Syro-Palestinian archaeology page and replaced all of the links from Southern Levant to Palestine (something he's been doing to every article which includes the name Southern Levant in the past)

Is this acceptable wiki editing behavior? It seems rather bullyish to me. Drsmoo (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't say. In the light of what appears to be the inevitable outcome at History_of_pottery_in_Palestine that the community feels that the name Palestine should be retained in the title, the considerations for using it in the body of an article are far less determined by policy and more determined by common usage than its use in a title. The only way to determine whether the changes made in the Syro-Palestinian archaeology page are proper is to go back and look at the source for each and see what terms it uses. If Kotniski is correct in that the geographical regions described by the terms Palestine and Southern Levant are not coterminous — and I do not know if he/she is or is not — then the term actually used by a source could be significant depending on the context. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know why you say that, there are three opposing the move (two of which posted for the first time yesterday), and two supporting the move at this point. Given that the move talk was made at the "wrong version" and the original article title is History of Pottery in the Southern Levant, which is what the article has been called for five years, it appears there is no consensus for a name change and so it should be reverted back to History of Pottery in the Southern Levant. Remember that despite the particular wording of the name change request that was put up, what is actually being discussed is moving the article to History of Palestine, and not the other way around. Kotnisky is certainly incorrect regarding the article, there are 8 references in the body to Southern Levant, and only 1 to Palestine. The area it describes has been within the Southern Levant for 5 years, and none of the actual text of the article was changed when Oncenawhile moved the article name. What this move change is actually about is Oncenawhile being convinced that the term "Southern Levant" is part of some "Hasbara propoganda" (he has spoken to that affect before) and he feels compelled to remove all references to that name on wikipedia, and if that involves restructuring pages so be it. Hence the reason why, after History of the Southern Levant was move protected, he created an article called History of Palestine where he copied and pasted the text from History of the Southern Levant. He stated at that point that Palestine and Southern Levant were separate regions and therefore required to have separate articles. This was duplicitous however, as he then proceeded to replace all links on wikipedia from Southern Levant to Palestine, something that seems to be quite far from acceptable wiki etiquette. That's basically what's going on here as well. He claims when it suits him that Southern Levant and Palestine are different areas, but then tries to change all of the names, despite community consensus, from Southern Levant to Palestine. Drsmoo (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * But the name change requested, whether you believe it to be at the wrong version or not, was for a change from Palestine to Southern Levant. The fact that it was previously changed from SL to P is irrelevant since consensus can change. The comment period (which has been extended once from 7 to 14 days) has ended and, indeed, it appears to me that there is no consensus for that change, thus in effect establishing a new consensus by silence for the current title. I wholly disagree that "what is actually being discussed is moving the article to History of Palestine, and not the other way around;" the issue about whether or not the use of the word Palestine can be seen as an endorsement of the Palestinian nationalism movement is the same regardless of which way the move was to occur. I am disappointed that the community was not more interested in this discussion, but that's the way it sometimes happens here at WP. Again, we look at edits, not editors here at WP and the motivations of the other editor for making his edits are irrelevant so long as the edits are proper under WP policies and guidelines. I stand by my previous response, but it's just my opinion. I'm not a judge (there aren't any here at WP) or some kind of WikiGod, just a neutral opinion-giver and dispute resolutionist and I've certainly been wrong before. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind me asking, why was the move request made at History of Pottery in Palestine, rather then at History of Pottery in the Southern Levant, which the article has been titled for five years now? Since it appears that a "tie" goes to the current article name, there is a very significant "advantage" in the move request being put in at either article title. In addition, after 14 days, there were two votes supporting the move back to Southern Levant, and only one opposing it. It would seem strange to me, then, to close the discussion now, after the sea-saw has gone the other way, rather than after the original 14 days. Ultimately I'm not overly concerned with this article, and I suspect Oncenawhile isn't either what concerns me is the very likelyhood that if the move change to Pottery in Palestine is cemented, Oncenawhile will use that and then attempt to change every article on Wikipedia from Southern Levant to Palestine, and remove all references to the former. Drsmoo (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did it that way on purely procedural grounds: That's where the article was at the time. History of pottery in the Southern Levant was just a redirect, so there was nothing there to move. As for the closing of the requested move, I haven't closed it and do not intend to do so, and it is still listed in the "Backlog" section of the Requested Moves list. (What I said in my original comment above was, "what appears to be the inevitable outcome" and in my second comment that the period has ended. I also didn't extend it from the first 7 days to 14, either, someone else — Vegaswikian — did.) Perhaps someone will extend it again and more !votes will come in. As for what the other editor will do with it, perhaps he will use it in that manner, but if his edits are proper under WP policy and guidelines, then there's no problem (and I would note that the Titles section of the NPOV policy says that in the bodies of articles, as opposed to the titles, the most commonly used term ought to be used even if it has POV issues). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm wrong about the result of a no-consensus outcome. See my comments at Talk:History_of_pottery_in_Palestine. I said I could be wrong and award myself a [[Image:Rainbow trout.png|20px]] self-whack!, but I apologize to you anyway and am glad I found it in time. That mistake does not change, however, the other things I said above. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen's Bands
Newspaper reporting of this incident is inaccurate as news reporting often is. news reporting is not a good enough source. I have inside knowledge of this incident and will identify myself to moderators if necessary. the entire incident needs to play put before there is any mention of it here or it may result in a lawsuit against many parties, wikipedia included.

this incident will be resolved in the new year, and it is also important to note there is not only possibly pending legal action in a civil suit but also the involvement of major crimes. the reported sanction of ordering queen's bands to human rights training is also false. there are issues of violations of the Canadian Charter in this incident. The entire incident involves only two people, not the entire membership of Bands, who cannot and will not be disciplined. I repeat, the continued false and inaccurate reporting of this incident may result in lawsuits, and that is why there has been nor more mention of it in Canada's national media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.187.233.97 (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As I've noted on your user talk page, making direct or implied threats of lawsuits or other legal threats within Wikipedia is strictly prohibited by Wikipedia policy under WP:LEGAL and can cause your IP address (and username, if you choose to begin using one) to be blocked from editing. If you feel that legal issues must be addressed, you may do so without risk of being blocked by communicating them directly to the Wikimedia Foundation. Regular stories in mainstream newspapers are considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

the Mediation thing...
That new mediation dispute you're about to work on (Strings, I think)...do you mind if I join you? I'm a novice, and I'd like to get some experienc ein dispute resolution. I can start it off for you if you like... --Thehistorian10 (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I was probably going to close the mediation and send them back to do other dispute resolution steps before coming to MedCab, but you can make an exception if you like and take the case. Though I'm one of the MedCab coordinators, I generally only do clerkish things there and don't actually mediate much due to my very unpredictable schedule. You might ask Steven Zhang or Mr. Stradivarius. If they're too busy, drop me another note and I can probably get another couple of names for you to try or maybe my schedule will clear up enough to let me do it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that bobrayner has agreed to give you a hand. Very good! Good luck and best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank you, very very much. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 02:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. You've inspired me to join the DRN team - I've been weighing in on disputes there and trying to help people calm things down, following your example. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

3O
Thanks for fixing my 3O request - I'm usually at noticeboards rather than 3O and forgot that no names are supposed to be named. :/ –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There's been a response (comment + edit) to your 3O, if you'd like to answer. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you were so kind as to help in this matter, would you kindly give your opinion on this related action? You may be able to tell whether the deletion is justified.  Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that my standards as a 3O Wikipedian will not allow me to comment further, but I will note that I think that the revisions make it a closer question and that a request to an appropriate topic project or an RFC might be in order to attract some additional opinions. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A holiday wish for those involved in dispute resolution
Archaeologists say that the development of agriculture was the defining step between the primitive ages of humanity and civilization. When war overwhelms a country or region agriculture is one of the first things to be disrupted and when war ends agriculture is, and indeed must be, one of the first things to return. The work of peacemakers is, therefore, almost literally the conversion of swords into plowshares.

To all my colleagues in dispute resolution, I hope that in this holiday season and in the new year you yourselves receive a full measure of the peace which you have helped others find and which you so richly deserve. May your problems be few and may your joys be many. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks buddy. Hope you have an equally happy and peaceful Christmas. Best wishes, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 22:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The same to you - happy holidays! Sleddog116 (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I hope your holiday season is as joyful and peaceful as that too. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year :) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 01:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words; I wish you an equally happy & peaceful Christmas. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

AE request could use a comment by you
Please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. This is a dispute between Roscelese and Esoglou. I saw your name at Talk:Catholic Church and abortion as providing a Third Opinion so I figured you might be aware of the issues. The closing admins may need help in understanding what is going on. If you feel like adding your own comment at AE you would be welcome to do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was opened and closed while I was offline. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

xxxterm article
Sorry for calling for Your opinion on the article that is totally unrelated to Your Wikipedia activity, but I need an opinion of an editor whose good faith and adequateness I could trust, so I would kindly ask You to comment on talk:xxxterm. This invitation doesn't mean that I want Your support to my position, I just want to have an opinion I would believe creditable and You are the most neutral person towards me I can engage not to risk being accused of calling my friends to support me regardless of the factual matters. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding time to reply. BTW, I wouldn't get offended if You replied to the talk page directly. Anyway, I really appreciate Your view on this issue. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion on DRN
Hi there,

I notice that the IP has added another tirade to the DRN. What's the next step forwards if this IP editor still doesn't get the picture? He/she doesn't seem to realise that a COI notice isn't the same as what they did, and doesn't appear to have even the remotest ability to WP:AGF. I know I could continue to pour oceans of calm, civil patience and granny-type "ways forwards" approaches to this editor (probably forever), but it seems that absolutely nothing is going to work in this case. I remember hearing / reading someone using the phrase "frothing vitriol" about something wiki-related, somewhere (lol!) - this case brings it forcibly to mind! Is this IP editor just going to go on, and on, and on doing the same stuff? We can't rangeblock out half of a city in Switzerland, or all of a university / college / whatever over there (term-time IP address is very different from holiday-time address). Do we just go the "don't feed" route from here? Pesky ( talk  …stalk!) 18:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You've got mail. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You haz reply :o)  (>**)> Hugz.  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 10:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Please Reconsider
On the PIT Maneuver page, there is a set of instruction on how to perform and avoid the maneuver; You refused to consider permanent removal of the material because the, in short, Wikiepdia can not be held liable: Liability against Wikipedia site “can only be applied if the goal was "producing imminent lawless conduct".” I submit the intention of the poster (not nessesarily Wikipedia itself) intent WAS exactly this: To get people to use the tactics, both for the purposes of carjacking and avoiding arrest (one is automatically a felony, the other may be; considering a vehicle is involved, it usually will result in felonies, if not one in and of itself, in ‘most’ jurisdictions). I would hate to see the outcome of a case in which someone DIED based on the information gleaned here… A. J. REDDSON
 * PS- I really won’t know if you’ve followed up on this matter or not; I confess that the presentation of that material here infuriates me, as someone did, in fact, try and “Pit” me once in a road-rage incident, and knowing the tactic is being disseminated this way makes me really want to do “bad things” to those putting the information out. It’s like telling would-be McVEIGH’S of the world how to build a bomb, which is why I avoid the page in question (I don’t even come around at all now, for the most part).
 * The advice I gave to you here still stands. If you wish to press your point that providing the information is an illegal act, you should contact the Wikimedia Foundation General Counsel via one of the methods set out here. On a purely personal note, while I support restrictions on many things which would help or encourage individuals to commit antisocial or irresponsible acts — restriction of the ownership of guns by violent felons, for example — I draw a line at restricting knowledge and information (especially, but not only, when the restriction comes from law or other government action). One of the reasons that freedom of speech, especially that variety we practice here in the USA, is so important is that to give someone the right to determine and to limit what someone else gets to know, or worse, needs to know is far more dangerous to society than any such information which could be transmitted. Just look at the Great Firewall of China as an cautionary example (though there are many other similar and different examples which can be cited). Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: My AE case
Hey, T Caenens, the admin responsible for the my topic ban, noted that the DRN case is not a violation of my ongoing ban. Can you please reopen my DRN case, if possible?--PCPP (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Done, and sorry for the drama. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to shut down WP Geographic Coordinates & ban coordinates on wikipedia articles
This means you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
...for the help. SLWatson (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update
Dear : Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:
 * Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your correction at DR/N. I wasn't going to say anything further as I thought perhaps I had simply found the similar information from an essay. When I did locate it at the proper guideline I thought at that point it was indeed a dead horse. I will not look at this as taking any side in the prior discussion or current one, but simply clarification. I appreciate your input--Amadscientist (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC).


 * You are very welcome. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Aviators" discussion on DRN
Hi, TransporterMan. I was wondering if you could keep an eye on this discussion for me over the next few days. I'm still fairly new to DRN, and I think I may be in over my head here. We seem to have one editor who's being really pushy, and one who just won't drop it. I feel like I've extended the olive branch only to be soundly thrashed with it. Obviously, I am approaching my wits' end with these two (in fact, I may have been a little over-forceful in my last comment), and I'm just not sure where to go from here. I'd like for them to have a chance to respond to my latest remarks, but it would be great if you could keep an eye out. Also, any advice you could give me on how to handle the situation would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * When I created the I intentionally used the image of Socrates reaching for the cup of poison hemlock while rendering an opinion. DR is frequently like that. We're trying to get people to compromise and settle and I've always defined a compromise settlement as an agreement that everyone accepts, but no one really likes. I'll take a closer look at Aviators, but probably won't have a chance to do it until some time after 14:00 UTC on Monday. (I don't have many opportunities to edit, especially at length, on weekends.) On a quick look, however, I think you've been doing a heckuva good job without putting your foot in it, which is a considerable accomplishment in itself. I'll keep an eye and take a look. Best regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 04:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've now looked at it carefully and can definitely say that you're wrong: you're not in over your head. The only suggestion I would make, and frankly I think you don't really need it because you're already there on your own, is that sometimes it's time to call in Andrea Bocelli to serenade the disputants. Outstanding work, keep it up! Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to drag you into it or anything, but I think another opinion on the aviators discussion may be apropos at this time (or after the involved parties have responded to my last post). I'm not "calling for backup" or anything, I just think it might be helpful to have another brain in the discussion. I'm beginning to feel like I'm repeating myself and not accomplishing anything productive. I'm not dropping out or anything, I just think having another voice might be very helpful. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I too have been watching that thread. I'll chime in later today. Regards, Steven   Zhang  Join the DR army! 19:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Clerk comment"
Hi. Please comment here. Axl ¤  [Talk]  23:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the Rfc
Thanks for helping out with that. I've never done an RFC before so I was not aware that it had linked to the wrong page because of capitalization. I appreciate the help. DoctorK88 (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Where did you move it exactly? I cannot find it anywhere. If possible, a link would be most helpful, thanks in advance. DoctorK88 (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Here. Regards,  TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hunnic empire
Hi and thank you for your comments on the Hunnic Empire topic (and the barnstar). I think the editor who created the DRN didn't know to use RFC instead. Sorry to have bothered you there. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No bother at all, part of what we do there is to get people to the right place, and you're welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice opportunity
Hey TransporterMan, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to work together while Steven is on break, such as, working to keep everything at DRN and MEDCAB in order while he's gone. Thanks!  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Help
Thank you for your input on the dispute resolution noticeboards (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=472400681#Legio_IX_Hispana.) I really don't understand how all this works, but it seems like all the neutral editors agreed with what I was saying, yet the discussion was closed without it being resolved. How do we prevent cliques on a mission from twisting and ignoring the rules? One of the people involved on the "other side" is an administrator with a history of using his authority involving edits on this topic. 99.101.160.126 (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, this was also posted to my talk page. in almost the exact same content. I'm inclined to dismiss the request (which long ceaced being a content dispute).  Your thought TM? Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) @99: Please see my closing comments here for my recommendations at the time I closed the dispute. I truly don't mean this to be criticism, but things generally keep moving here at Wikipedia even if they sometimes move in itsy, bitsy, tiny steps over a sometimes-excruciating period. You already are suffering from some degree of prejudice because you're editing from an IP address (it's not supposed to be that way, but I know from experience that there are a lot of experienced users who don't give as much weight to IP edits as they do to signed-in edits); you don't improve your credibility by then not editing for 25 days in the middle of a discussion. In that light and in this particular case, my real recommendation would be to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass and move on to working on something else with a better likelihood of success. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * One last point. The clique you refer to could also be called consensus.  If editors who have been working with and on the project for a while all express the same viewpoint (and you get the same response) it could just be your viewpoint that is not in line with (even if it's silent) consensus. Hasteur (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I really like your additions to WP:M

 * Thank you very much. I really appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Steven   Zhang  DR goes to Wikimania! 19:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And thanks again. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution
Hey TransporterMan. A party in a dispute that you were trying to resolve at Talk:Boom! Studios has requested for full-protection because the dispute hasn't been resolved yet. I'm just leaving a passing note here for you to take a look at the dispute again and try to work with the parties. Regards,  Whenaxis  talk &middot; &#32;contribs &#124; DR goes to Wikimania!  01:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Any assistance you could provide in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Njkaters continues to make edits removing Andrew Cosby from the page, with no explanation, despite having been provide with numerous sources contradicting his claims. I have tried to comply with Wikipedia's suggestions, used talk pages, etc. But no response. I don't want to edit war, but this is vandalism and an obvious abuse of Wikipedia in pursuit of some agenda against Mr. Cosby. Truthsayer2012 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback (Ks0stm)
Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

RE U-8047 submarine museum
You have merged the two articals but the note is still on top from the other editor. Please can you remove it?Uboater (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. Could you explain or provide links or diffs? — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) &#124; DR goes to Wikimania! 14:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep an eye out
Hey there - not that you aren't already, but you might want to keep an eye on this discussion and perhaps comment. I really don't know enough about the problem to jump in on this one, but it doesn't look like these editors are going to be able to hash this one out on their own - and it's starting to look nasty (accusations, bad faith calls). You might want to jump in here before things get out of hand. Thanks. Sleddog116 (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem to be getting too ripe from what I just read? Are your concerns with the comments on the DiRes notice board itself, or are there other places people are having a bit of a wobbly? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)