User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

In Wikipedia:Help desk I had asked a question: "Are citations required for Geographical coordinates?" Thibbs has clarified "Citations are required for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. In general it is a good idea to include citations for factual information like that." I have added geographical coordinates to hundreds of pages calculating them from Yahoo (earlier) and Google maps. So, that was all wrong? Should I have just left it with a coordinates missing tag? I feel that coordinates are easily verifiable and there should be a policy regarding that. Are there any? Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 03:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Since the answer might be valuable to other editors, too, I've answered at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Geographical_coordinates (or here's the diff of my response). Just BTW: Wikimapia is a much better source than Google Maps for the actual coordinates (the coordinates of the crosshairs on the map are constantly updated in the URL), though Google Maps is better for text searching to get to the general location. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

) 18:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For how you dealt with this crap. Good heavens - what a mess. You have far more patience than I do. Sleddog116 (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sled, I appreciate it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Strongly seconded, this barnstar. I read that thread, too, with strong interest. Your comments could serve as a model of effective dispute resolution. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And thanks to you, too. I truly appreciate it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to gum up the thread at Talk:DRN with an additional comment to say so, but I did want to let you know that I appreciated the link and read the corresponding Jan-Feb 2012 thread about the same issue. --OhioStandard (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the policy on which your last comment on DRN is based. I looked carefully before I acted and could find nothing. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See the project rules at the top of the DRN page:

Please keep discussions on this page civilized, present the issues in a concise and calm manner, and try to present a neutral view of the issues at hand. Issues that go off topic or become hostile may be refactored or closed after warning. This noticeboard is designed to diffuse disputes, not worsen them.

What I gave was such a warning. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't say that I agree completely, especially about the SPA tags. But I'll bow to your superior experience on DRN and revert my warning notices, if you agree to remove yours. Ok? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the warnings you left on other user(s?) talk pages, I have absolutely no objection to them (nor any approval of them, for that matter). That's your rodeo. They just should not be mentioned at DRN. Having been mentioned already however, I feel that it's best to leave them there, along with my warning, rather than making it look like something underhanded is going on by rv'ing them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing remotely "underhanded" in reverting the warnings and tags on DRN, nor can I imagine anyone objecting for whatever reason. Can't see why it would be best to leave them there if they are creating a hostile environment, as you say, and don't belong there anyway. Again, I'm offering to revert if you will. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Done for both of us. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a big bunch. Good luck! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I missed one, glad that you or someone else got it. Dziękuję bardzo. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's something inconsistent in the warning to IRWolfie being on the DRN page instead of on his talk page. Would you consider relocating it? Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, and you do have a point, but I'm participating in that discussion as a DRN mediator/clerk, not just as another participant or disputant, and feel that the warnings need to be "public" since they have the potential to cause the entire discussion to be shut down. That's also, moreover, where we've always put them at DRN, so I think I'll have to decline that request. (BTW, if my itinerary for my next trip to Poland doesn't change, I'll be driving through Wrocław some time in September. I'll wave as I go by, watch for me.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I see. You'd be wise to make a stop in Wrocław. The town square is absolutely incredible, the nicest in Poland. I like it better than Cracow's. Where are you visiting in Poland? Perhaps I can point out some great things to see. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that you didn't remove the SPA tags I added. Is there a reason you left them, or can I remove them, too? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, just go ahead and delete them. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Wrocław, thank you for the suggestion. I've been to Wrocław and it is quite enchanting. (Do they still have that beautiful glass fountain on the rynek?) I've been to Poland many times, going for 3-4 weeks every 18-24 months over many years, and have been all around the country. I'd like to see Wrocław again, having only been there for a couple of days, but this time will just be driving through at best, unfortunately. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the fountain is still there, but it's been upstaged by the 20,000,000 Euro multimedia fountain in the Pergola by Centennial Hall [[1]]. Have a great trip. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading the discussion you had about this. No one seems to have brought up the problem I had today. I could have pointed to a diff, and said look, this one is like that one because of A & B. But if I do that, it's quite likely that the sock will start avoiding A & B, making catching them next time much more difficult. Sure, transparency is great, but socking is not just a minor problem and I think will get worse, not better.

) 17:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've lost me and I'm not at all sure to what you're referring. Could you provide a link or diff? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for your prompt response to my appeal regarding List of Dewey Decimal classes. Life is good. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you for working to improve Wikipedia (and thanks for the thanks). Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Glancing over your user page made me realize that I had missed folk metal entirely. Which from my perspective was a good thing. Also, (short version, but it so fits into your user page), my wife gave my daughter a new video camera one night while she was working night shift at a gas station. Kara (daughter) got on the phone from work, lined up some of her friends who showed up at her station at the end of her shift at 1 am. By 6 am she had shot and edited The Zombies of Ann Arbor. A much underrated modern masterpiece, the only copy of which was later stolen from her home by a stalker. America. What a place to live. Carptrash (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Folk metal is easy to miss, being kind of a niche of a niche of a niche. I'm a late-in-life metalhead, having not paid any attention to it until being accidentally introduced to it in my mid-50's, and though I have very expansive musical tastes, from classical to reggae to morna to Oi! to (may the Metal Gods forgive me) Glee and even some country and more, metal is by far my preferred and most-consumed genre. And, good for your daughter, we all need to spread the word of the coming zombie apocalypse; that's a shame about her video, but she should get motivated and do another. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I (another

) 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Notification

You appear to have missed the two secondary sources that do cover the notification on Vassula Ryden, see the dispute resolution where I have pasted them. It's also appears to be mentioned in the times in 11th February 1996 if you have access to this [2].

) 09:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that there are multiple secondary sources including 4 books on the notifications. I have listed some in the discussion (it's not an exhaustive list, I imagine the newspaper archives would have even more).

) 09:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion to take the conduct discussion to WP:COIN, WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, or WP:SPI.

A question though, the header of the DRN page include "However, we do accept disputes where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes." - has this conduct issue not arise in the course of a content dispute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nenpog (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That statement does not mean that we deal with conduct disputes, only that we won't kick out a content dispute merely because there are incidental conduct issues involved. This dispute appears to have transformed into a conduct-only dispute and we do not handle those; if it gets back on track as a content dispute there is no reason that it cannot continue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your post at my talk page. I've been thinking about it. You are right, that people who have been working in different areas come at problems from different angles. I am very keen on codifying HISTRS. Previously, the "historians only" position was to be found in two places: hidden somewhere in WikiProject History, where I could never find it when I needed it, and in WikiProject Military History's style guide (WP:MILMOS). It's good to open it up for scrutiny, so that whatever guidelines we do eventually come up with will have buy-in across the community of established users. What is now just an essay should be worked up to guideline status; it won't be policy, since WP:IRS isn't policy, VP:V is.

One thing I like about DRN is its firm emphasis on article quality rather than user conduct. Too often we put up a notice for the benefit of people with too much time on their hands: "Here is the place for a nice long argument". I have fallen for this myself in the past. Mediations and Arbcoms can become timesinks, while sourcing guidelines, general and subject-specific, and RSN can be an important contribution to refocusing discussion towards content rather than beaviour.

I learnt a lot from an exchange I once had with the now retired user Relata Refero. He had removed some material relating to the Austrian School of economics on the grounds that it was fringe and not mainstream economics. I was surprised because I knew he was interested in Keynes. I wondered why he would go along with a narrow interpretation of what economics is. He said something like "the economists do a good job of policing themselves, so we don't have to". That really made me think. What constitutes knowledge in a particular subject area is not something we can define on Wikipedia.

I'll be very interested in reading your further contributions to the discussion, whether on the project talk page or on our individual talk pages.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

I would like to extend my appreciation for how you mediated the Vassula Ryden dispute. What I appreciated most is that you took several days to read the relevant material on the web and carefully examined each of the documents in question, reading them over and over and reflecting on them accordingly. Most users do not make that effort and it is necessary if one is to mediate a topic such as this one. You then came up with an honest response, which that the documents were difficult to interpret, self contradictory and somewhat confusing. I hope that, at least in the immediate future, the Vassula Ryden can continue to benefit from your suggestions and insight. Arkatakor (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Get involved in DR!

02:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Bearnstar

		The Bear Barnstar
		Awarded for simple, bare contributions otherwise unrewarded. Citation: Well done for winning the spelling beer SpinningSpark 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that was a pretty odd (edit conflict) ... right as you were adding the status update to this, I was writing the exact same thing... :P Some things.... Theopolisme TALK 15:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Transporterman, hope things are well on your end. I wanted to inform you that your your final comment in the DRN

in the Vassula Ryden article has not been heeded by some of the other involved editors. They claim that the new updated sources that they came up with in the DRN offer reliable interpretation on the subject, however the Levada's 2007 letter sources are still questionable (as you yourself stated) and most of the other sources that back up the other Vatican documents predate the 2007 letter, hence they do not offer a synthesis of all the documents. There have been some minor updated sources though - here is a current list of the sources being used in the section for your perusal:

1995 Notification Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-SFOChronicle-1
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-LATimes2-3
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-1995Notification-5
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-Herrero-11
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-18

1996 Notification Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-SFOChronicle-1
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-Nickell-14
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-19

2004 Letter Sources (N/A - any mention of it continues to be excluded from the article)

2007 Letter Sources:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-Levada-20
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-21
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vassula_Ryden#cite_note-Libertad-22

I would like to ask you; do you still stand by your opinion that this section should be removed on the grounds that there is no synthesis for all the documents published by the Vatican? Sorry for coming back to you with this - just want to know where your opinion stands. Cheers. Arkatakor (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You may wish to respond here
  talk
  ) 10:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread

02:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please could you have a look at this page, I have been criticized for being biased and a POV notice has been applied. Naturally I think its all very unfair , as I have tried to remain truthful and neutral. But I am new. I would very much appreciate any comments or recommendations either way, (I am not good with stress)....Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have listed at

WP:DRN and received help there. Thanks for asking, though. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 14:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-references

Replied on my talk page, but to save you the trouble, It's at the bottom of

talk

) 13:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Closing Comment on DRN

I have a lot of trouble with your closing statment statement here:

1. The information on
   WP:RFC
   is not a hard and fast policy
2. This is especially so for the footnote you are talking about
3. If only edit summaries are used for discussion it would disqualify for a DRN file, not an insubstantial talk page discussion; as long as the disputing parties have discussed the issue and then any party can file a DRN. It doesn't matter which party, but if the any of the involved parties are in disagreement, then they can lodge a DRN file.Curb Chain (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Though I disagree, pursuant to your objection I have reopened the listing and notified the disputants of the reopening. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Since you've not responded, let me add that I'm not sure what you're trying to say in 1 & 2, above. I "get" 3 and have opened discussion about the general topic (not this specific instance) on the DRN talk page, but I'm just not sure what you mean about the first two. The problem is this, and we see it again and again: X edits, Y reverts, X requests discussion on the talk page but gets no response, he asks again on Y's user talk page, no response.

WP:CONS#No consensus says the edit cannot be made due to no consensus. What's X supposed to do? Merely failing to respond to a discussion request does not violate policy or guidelines (though it probably should, IMHO), so he can't report it to ANI. If he re-reverts, and a 3RR war starts X will hit the 4th revert before Y does and is engaging in edit warring long before that. All content DR forums require discussion before applying for DR and that included RFC until I added that footnote and gave notice of the addition on the RFC talk page Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#No-discussion_RFC.27s here. (Maybe that response totally misses what you were trying to say, but it's my best guess...) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 15:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Some rfcs are initiated for wider opinion on an issue
2. X edits, Y reverts, X should explain his position and why his version is superior but gets no response, he asks again on Y's user talk page, no response. Then X should revert. This isn't no consensus, this is Y being disruptive; if Y continues to revert, then it can be reported to ANI. 3rr is not edit warring.

Are you aware of instances of such reports being given credence at ANI? (I'm not suggesting that they haven't; I just don't know one way or another.) There's certainly no policy or guideline which supports such a procedure, but if it works then what the hey, why not? By the way, in reference to your last edit summary, all I meant by "since you've not responded" was that since you had not responded here on this page since my last prior posting here of 13:18, 26 June 2012, that I wanted to supplement what I'd said in that posting before you had a chance to do so. I didn't mean to criticize you at all, in any way, by that remark, and I'm sorry if I was ambiguous. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The 1st revert is not edit warring. To explain further: "X edits, Y reverts, X should post on talk page why his position is superior, X should wait for Y's response; if no response, then asking on Y's talk page is optional; if no response still, then X may revert".Curb Chain (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In reply to the AN file/you request on my talk page for discussion contribution/notification on my talk page

I don't understand what don't you get about my explanation directly above. It's pretty easy to follow with the same nomenclature that you used. Maybe ask me what you don't understand before filing an AN.Curb Chain (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't go to AN because I didn't understand you, I knew you were saying either one thing or the other, or both, and it wasn't to criticize you. Indeed, it was because I admitted the possibility that you might be right and I might be wrong that I wanted to check so I would know what to do in the future. Though AN is sometimes misused to file complaints, it's not intended for that purpose (

WP:ANI is for filing complaints). AN is for bringing general situations to administrators' notice and for asking for administrators' advice. I used it for the latter purpose, nothing more, nothing less. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the

.

Regards,

talk

) 07:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Cabalist Award

	The Cabalist Award
	For giving them all the slip good and proper. Long live the Cabal! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Strad, I appreciate it very much. Long live the cabal! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi...mind jumping on?

) 20:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm disappointed, I really thought there was a dispute about Cake. OK, I really need to take that page off my Watchlist now. Belchfire-TALK 21:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just wanted to see how the wizard works. Cake would be delicious. Best regards, and thanks for helping at DRN, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your removal of the speedy tag, but I do still believe that G12 still applies, as it is a new article with "copyrighted material (admitted on talk page) with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving". However, I should have remembered to blank it, thanks for that.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I was heavily involved in CSD work, but at that time the rule was that any editor other than the page creator may contest and remove a CSD tag for any, or no, stated reason. Once removed, the removal was incontestable and the matter should move on to a PROD or AfD if the nominator still desired deletion. It was also the rule that CSD criteria must be strictly satisfied before an article can be deleted under CSD. (Indeed my RfA nomination failed largely because other editors believed, not wholly without justification, that I was nominating articles which did not strictly meet those criteria.) Perhaps those are not still the rule, but if they are then reverting the removal of a CSD nom would be inadvisable. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that the rules are the same, see

Wikipedia:Deletion_Policy#Speedy_deletion. — TransporterMan (TALK

) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, removing a tag for "no reason" is probably frowned upon anyway, but I wasn't planning on reverting you. I'm waiting, without a CSD tag, for an administrator to assess that there is no salvagable non-copyvio content, or find that an OTRS volunteer has received permission to use the text. Either would be an acceptable outcome.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Dear TransporterMan: I am writing to again request that all mention of any copyright violations be removed from the original page, the talk page, and the page history. The speedy deletion tag was applied, as far as I can understand, because the page was well-written and contained references. As you acknowledge, this is not a criterion for the tag. We then tried to openly and forthrightly address the issue, resulting in an even more incriminatory tag that the creators acknowledge the violation. As is evident at the top of the talk page, we never acknowledged that: the sentence from the NSF proposal was not a copyright infringement and, as far as we know, two phrases is not a copyright infringement. I challenge anyone to write hundreds of pages on a topic without recycling an occasional phrase. At the same time, we understand and appreciate that wikipedia needs to be very cautious about copyrights, and we have removed and rewritten them at your request. Please let us know who we need to contact to get this issue resolved in a timely way. Thank you.Ah1689

The ongoing

) 01:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(

Help resolve disputes!

02:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am (or used to be, as I don't recall participating since my two-month wikibreak) a frequent contributor to 3O process, and I frequently find myself in position of mediator. In fact, the process always goes behind providing third opinion and leaving, so whatever is written in rules, 3O editor's comment would still have an effect of trumping one's !vote by giving another party a benefit of acceptance. I don't mean that I always (or frequently, or even at all) take one's part in 3O requests, but even listing the relevant policies with brief explanation of their application ends up being in one's favor. That said, the "processiness" of DRN boils down to brief form filling, which is rather small overweight to 3O's dispute listing. Given that 3O requests are accepted for disputes with ≤5 parties (which is more then normally comes to DRN) and 3O editors are encouraged to keep an eye and interject the subsequent dispute development, the 3O and DRN processes are effectively interchangeable in my opinion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The other major difference between the two processes, other than the fact that 3O's do not "count" towards consensus, is that 3O has a neutrality requirement, which requires the opinion-giver to have no prior dealings with the article or the disputants that might bias one's opinion. Such a requirement would probably be a good add-on for DRN, but we do not have it there at this time. Also, though some Third Opinion Wikipedians do it differently, my feeling has always been that the best way to give a 3O (and the way that is at least implied by the nature of a 3O and the "What happens next?" section of the 3O FAQ) is that a 3O is just that: a single-shot opinion, and that the opinion-giver should not become involved in mediating the dispute or, worse, in the dispute itself. If I'm right about that being the "right" way to give a 3O, that's yet a third difference between 3O and DRN. The bigger confusion, in my opinion, is whether the two processes are mutually exclusive: Can you, that is, get a 3O and then go to DRN, or vice versa? My opinion is that you certainly can go from 3O to DRN, especially since 3O's do not count: it's entirely up to the disputants to accept or reject them; if they're rejected, then they become nothing. The other way around, however, going from DRN to 3O, while not impossible, is probably impractical and looks a lot more like forum-shopping. What sense does it make to ask for a non-binding 3O when you've already had opinions given at DRN which contribute to consensus? (Not to mention that in most cases there will be more than two editors involved at that point.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hm... Firstly, as I get it, DRN volunteers are also expected to play external role in consensus building, which is what 3O provides. In effect, DRN seems to be a less "processy" version of MedCab, with lack of formal restrictions making it particularly similar to 3O requests. FWIW in a last couple of days I witnessed two requests that ended up being conducted on the talk page the very same way I would generally expect of 3O process. In effect, when I answer 3O requests I generally have to answer subsequent questions. In some cases I eve have to use {{third opinion}} (which looks very much like DRN dispute form without questions about previous discussion and participation) to ask editors to summarize their positions. To avoid further tl;dr: it seems that DRN and 3O are used interchangeably. May be there is any way to merge them? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree and see value in the separate processes. I generally do not answer questions after rendering a 3O, except requests for clarification. Unlike a lot of other DR processes here, 3O has been particularly successful, I believe, and needs to be kept. Though I don't think it's a compelling reason alone to keep it, it's also a good place for beginning DR volunteers to get their feet wet in DR simply because the process is so simple and the risk of doing harm so low. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's why I didn't post this to any 3O's or DRN's talk page. At least 3O was my entry point and did a good job of training me to handle disputes (though I'm not particularly successful in this area yet). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there TransporterMan! I have just nominated you for the Mediation Committee. Please have a look at the

) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, I was

) 21:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Dimi, no, tovarishch, everything is okay. We can make it work for the benefit of everyone. We all have the same goal in mind, in good faith. Gentle reminders and soft shoves, that's all we need. You're a great editor and DR volunteer and I've had faith in you since our first encounters. Don't stop, just go easy. Best regards, my friend, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not playing shooting doors drama, and there's no need in calming me down. I'm just trying to get, what did I do wrong, because FWIW I don't see any breach of logic in my actions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not your fault. I should have read the instructions more carefully. I think it's best to move on.--

(talk)

21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Probably we should file a case somewhere so that someone more experienced would decide, whose plea of guilt is valid. Though I'm pretty ready to insist that it is mine. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

So God created Manchester has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. †

Thank you for your kind words! I remember the advice that you gave me while I was still editing as

(talk)

21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Expanding 3O's scope

There's currently an ongoing discussion at

(talk)

22:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

Dear Transporter Man,

I was looking for some assistance after a page had been deleted and put a note on the dispute resolution noticeboard. It says on the board that you have closed the discussion. Had I started the discussion on the wrong place?

If so, please could you direct me to the correct place?

Many thanks, EmmaEJarvis (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated in my closing note there, it is Deletion review. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

MEDCOM Nomination

It is my pleasure to inform you that your

talk

) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

MedCom

My congratulations! Though I think that it is Wikipedia who benefits most from this fact. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well done mate, I'm proud of you.

Help resolve disputes!

02:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys, very, very, much. I'll do my best to live up to your confidence in me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page

.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Travel notice

TransporterMan is currently, or is about to be, traveling in real life from Friday 31 August 2012 through Monday 24 September 2012 and may not be able to respond immediately, or perhaps at all, to queries during that time or perhaps for a day or two before and after.

I'm back. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: reference in comment

FYi: You posted a comment at [3] in which you referenced one editor, but I think you meant to say PhilKnight. No big deal, but I thought you should know. --Noleander (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Nol. BTW, if anyone is watching this page, I'm still traveling with very limited connectivity, just a few minutes a day intermittently on a borrowed computer. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

You back?

Hope to see you back on-wiki soon :-)

Help resolve disputes!

11:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm back. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of

Help resolve disputes!

08:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for closing 2012 EU

I also noticed that the user that made an opening comment is the same one who listed themselves as Robbx213 an account that does not exist. This is the second time a non existing account/IP has filed a case and listed themselvs in the Participants section. Is the filing editor supposed to list themselves or are they supposed to only list other parties?--

talk

) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

They should list themselves (the listing form automatically plugs their name in), and their initial comments should be those in the

• Dispute overview,
• Have you tried to resolve this previously?, and
• How do you think we can help?

sections. The other involved editors are then each automatically provided with an "Opening comments by" section. If the dispute is listed by someone who has an account but has just not logged in, that ought to ordinarily be pretty obvious and shouldn't be a reason for closing the listing, but 2012 EU was totally incomprehensible and Michael Welner was filed by someone who was attempting to claim that he/she was neither of the actual disputants. IMHO the listing editor must ordinarily be one of the individuals involved in the dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Scots language

You recently gave a Third Opinion at the talk page of History of the Scots language at the request of an (multiple) IP editor who often informally signs as "Cassandra". The IP has been persistently advancing their original research on talk pages related to Scots and either does not heed (despite being told on numerous occasions) that they must not do this or has extreme difficulty with comprehension of the matter thereof. Unusually, today they have actually provided a link to text of an academic paper which they claim supports a proposed wording which they have posted in the section below your third opinion mentioned above. With the full source available, it is crystal clear how little it relates to the proposed text for the article. I'm at my wits end trying to get this editor to comprehend. Would you be willing to give your opinion on the matter, again? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I have responded at the article talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN Antisemitism

I guess I'm being a bit touchy here, but your hatting-comment at DRN for this section states that the 'filing editor' has attempted to discuss the issue. Unless you include comments in edit-summaries this is not the case. The only comment on the talk pge is by me, an 'antagonist' of the filing editor. He has made no attempt to discuss the issue at all on the article Talk page, so should not be 'credited' for such an effort. Paul B (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

He attempted to do so on the two listed disputants' user talk pages, see his edit history here, who were the only two involved at the time he listed the dispute at DRN. That's enough to qualify as an attempt, though one would hope that the actual discussion, had it occurred, would have taken place at the article talk page. No criticism — indeed, nothing at all of any kind, positive, negative, or indifferent — was implied or directed towards you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Thanks for your effort in my request for a third opinion in Ladin language. Unfortunately I didn't get any help. The other editor is continuing to reinstate his particular view of the facts (he tried the same on the german wikipedia, and was not successful). After several reverts, I now try to apply the 3RR due to edit-war, but I've never done that - please, can you help me?--Sajoch (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said at the article page, I would prefer not to get involved more than I already have in this particular dispute, but I would note that your Third Opinion request will remain pending for at least six days unless someone takes it before that time. There is no hurry, so give some other Third Opinion Wikipedian a chance to chime in. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Lane-statistics (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

WTA Linz

Hello! Where's find me a article "WTA Linz" which going now? Help me, please--

Many baks (talk

) 15:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not understand what it is that you are asking. I see that you are from Russia. Czarkoff speaks both Russian and English, so you might ask him in Russian. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Could

Generali Ladies Linz or 2012 Generali Ladies Linz be what you're looking for, perhaps? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 15:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have want to find an article about tennis tour WTA in Linz--

Many baks (talk

) 15:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Then the two links I gave above are, I believe, the ones you want. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

OK. All find. Thank you--

Many baks (talk

) 15:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Context for dispute (Yoga)

Hi, the outcome of the

talk

) 14:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The proper place to start such a request is at

WP:BOOMERANG should also always be taken into consideration before making such requests. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 20:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Closed dispute

Why have you closed the dispute regarding Stargate SG-1 episode? As far as I'm concerned, nothing has been resolved. I have heard yours and others points of view regarding spoilers, but I have suggested both a basic summary and a detailed page for individual episodes. This is an example of the basic summary here, not by me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_SG-1_%28season_6%29

And having in depth descriptions also available so people can get more information if they wanted. As was done here, again not by me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_%28Stargate_SG-1%29#Part_1

I have noticed that quite a few people don't like the policy in place as it stands, and I have suggested changes to it. But I seem to be hitting a wall with some that just quote policy and leave it at that, without even listening to my suggestion or noting that many other don't like this policy. There may have been a discussion in the past about it, but it is time to reopen it for debate.

My suggestion provides more information to be collected by wiki, an option for both types of information to be used AND makes both parties happy.

Please take this suggestion and think on it. Thanks Josh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hua89 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's resolved because under current policy you can't do what you were doing. The dispute between you and the other editor was, therefore, over. That completed the task and mission of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I do understand that you are pursuing a policy change, but DRN is not the proper venue for that. You're doing that, as indeed it should be done, at the

WP:SPOILER

talk page and that is the proper venue for that effort.

If I might offer a word of advice in regard to that effort, you need to understand that the existing spoiler policy did not come about merely because someone thought Wikipedia ought to include spoilers. It came about due to the application of other Wikipedia policies and due to the fundamental nature of Wikipedia as an dead-solid, nothing-more, nothing-less encyclopedia, not a message board, fan site, or blog. Most of the folks who have objected to the spoiler policy have done so on the basis of a general argument that "I don't like spoilers" or "spoilers are bad" or "spoilers are unfair," whereas those in favor of the policy generally argue in favor of it as a logical or even necessary extension of other policies and principles. The notion of "I don't like it" doesn't carry much weight here (see

WP:SPOILER talk page: You've said, in effect, "I don't like this policy and here's an alternative" and Farix has replied with policy-based objections to your proposal. (Though Farix did not articulate them very thoroughly, experienced Wikipedians will immediately understand what he's saying.) You may not get much traction for your proposal, therefore, unless you can come up with policy-based reasons to support it and to counter the policy-based arguments asserted against your position, starting with Farix's. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 14:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Implications

This was not the first time (

User:On the sixth day God created MANchester) that I've shortened my username. It turns out that, shockingly, very long usernames are fun to make up, but not-so-fun to type out. My username may have lost a God, but it still hasn't lost its Magic. Cheers, So God created MXanchester (talk)

17:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

DRN case of Windows Server 2012

Hello, TransporterMan

Look, I came to DRN to

discuss the contents without discussing the editor

; believe me, revealing the past discussion does not extend your understanding of what the problem is beyond what DRN says because the discussion did not comment on the contents at all.

Please, let's get this discussion started.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. (: Codename Lisa (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem...

I just wanted you to know that I have no problem at all with your recent vote change. The composition of the Mediation Committee is far more important than my personal feelings, and in this case I really can can see a good argument for a six to twelve month wait before renomination. Not that I am asking anyone else to oppose, of course; I will be on my best behavior going forward whichever way the nomination goes. I hope that this won't have any impact on our collegial working relationship -- it certainly won't on my end. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy, I'll look forward to you trying again. You'll always be Dalek Supreme to me ... and there's always, uh, no there's never the

Cabal. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 02:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Please see "Final Remarks by Guy Macon" at the bottom of Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Nominations/Guy Macon#Discussion of candidacy. There is no need for any response if it does not change your mind, but I wanted to make sure that you saw it. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)