User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Macon

Can we get him to stop following me around, accusing me of stuff, and lecturing me on policy? Thank u for any help to put an end to his invective pursuit of me. (I just want to be left alone by him, and have asked him numerous times to leave me alone; nothing works and he keeps posting to my talk, following me around and injecting himself on other's Talks as well. RUDE! And it's targeted stalking and harrassment too, why is it this editor has not been blocked? He initiaties attacks like this under the guise of being a "good Wikipedian who follows policy", and I think everyone knows that's BS by now, he simply cannot conduct himself civilly. Why doesn't he have sanctions imposed? This is a mystery to me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been in conversation with an Administrator. The Administrator is qualified to speak for himself. Instead Macon rudely has inserted himself, and lectures me on policy, and makes an offensive accusation. If I'm wrong about some policy, I'd rather hear from the Administrator that I'm in conversation with, not Macon, a editor who is not admin, and who has a long history of rudeness, nastiness, and following me and insulting me on Talk pages. How is it that this editor's intentional, invective, & incivil behaviors seem to be continually ignored and dismissed?? If there is any reasonable meaning of creating a harassing atmosphere and disruption on WP, they certainly apply to this editor. Please explain to me why others do not call a spade a space here, rather than all the coddling I see. (I would really like to know.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my theory is that Macon feels he can get by with anything, because there is no Administrator which will get involved to stop him. So he feels free to harrass, insult, badger, stalk, take frivolous cases to ANI, and other forms of intimidation. (I'd really like to understand this. Is WP supportive of blatently nasty and uncivil editors who stalk and badger and harass?! I don't get it. I know WP is imperfect, I don't expect it to be. But this is so obvious.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You can either not interact with / be left alone by an editor or you can repeatedly complain about that editor on multiple talk pages.[1][2][3][4]^{(edit comment)}[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] You can't do both. You have posted 16 negative (and often insulting) comments about me on 6 different talk pages in the last 5 days. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello!

	Anything I can do?
	I'm sorta new. Not really, but........is there anything small that I can edit? Maybe something thing that requires more information? Thank you! :) DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for being so willing to help out. You might take a look at Wikipedia:How to help, especially the "Find some open tasks" link. Best regards and good editing, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

White Terror Dispute

I am rather surprised that you think it is a conduct rather than a content dispute. I think it is clearly the latter, though based on a NPOV violation. Anyway, it may be that I wasn't sufficiently clear in my (first) dispute resolution notification. I will resubmit in I hope a more clear fashion. Thanks cwmacdougall 22:05, 6 November 2012

In the how-can-we-help section at DRN you stated, "EverlastingGaze needs to be told firmly that he does not own the White Terror article and to edit from a NPOV and to accept incremental improvements to the page. Alternatively, best to delete all and start fresh." Ownership, editing from a particular POV, and acceptance of other's edits are all things having to do with EverlastingGaze's conduct. When directed to an editor's motivations, NPOV is a conduct matter; when that editor's edits are examined without any consideration of that editor's motives but only on what they say and how they are sourced and how they fit in with the overall article, then POV can be a content matter (but needs to be examined on an edit-by-edit basis). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I take your point and have re-submitted my dispute resolution request emphasising the content issues. Hope it's better now. I agree that this arises from from a conduct matter (chiefly biased POV), but that is difficult to resolve without some support on the resulting content issues. cwmacdougall 15:43, 8 November 2012

Dispute

Thanks for wording your notification amicably. Obviously I don't believe the comments are defamatory, given the evidence, but then it's not going to make any difference anyway. Opbeith (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Information provided is true

I appreciate your note. If interested I can direct you to other individuals who have also worked with this surgeon to substantiate the statements posted. There is no libel in the affirmations recorded; although they may not be what you the editor wants, it is still true and should be available to the public to know the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savsev (talk • contribs) 18:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

We can only use them if they are reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia. Indeed for negative information about living persons, the sources must ordinarily be particularly impeccable and more than mere allegations, see the biographies of living persons policy for details. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage

Thanks for the clarification - I was just making sure, since in other cases there may be more sourcing. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No problem, glad to do it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Re List of Alpha Phi Omega members

Thanks for the third opinion! We'll work it out, or else I will leave the other editor to mull over your words; they have done a pretty good job on the page otherwise, while I just happened upon it.Brianyoumans (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Bragg

Hello! You tell for the this article, please--Many baks (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have no opinion about that proposal and do not have time at the moment to research it in order to take an enlightened position on the matter. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ali Mediation

Yes I still think this requires mediation; this is a contentius issue that needs sorting out. However, I believe I have answered your questions already. Brough87 (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

See my response at the mediation talk page. — TransporterMan (TALK) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lie to Me (album)

I have added more info to the dispute resolution page as you requested,I am just trying to understand why someone feel's what I added to the Wikipedia Article: Lie to Me(album), in the Personnel section (* Mark Pagliaro - Jonny Lang's guitar tech on 1997 Lie to Me Tour), as I am that person and it is a true statement by me and I have a letter from Blue Sky Artist Management written in 1997 documenting me as Jonny Lang's guitar tech for the 1997 Lie to Me Tour. I am now retired from the music industry and have nothing to gain from this edit and just thought that I was adding some fact to the article and did not realize that this would be some kind of issue for other users or readers. Maybe you could shed some light on this matter, so I can understand why what I did is being deemed as Conflict of Interest??? I did not intend to cause such a problem on this site.Thank You mdp0007Mark Pagliaro 22:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdp0007 (talk • contribs)

It would be inappropriate for me, as a member of the Mediation Committee, to respond to your questions while your request for mediation is still pending. If you will be patient, your questions will either be answered during the mediation, if your request is accepted, or more directly if it is not. As it is, by requesting mediation you have set in motion a process which must be completed one way or another before other things can happen. The one thing that I can tell you right now is that there are good answers for your questions. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for your direct answer to my questions.mdp0007Mark Pagliaro 04:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdp0007 (talk • contribs)

I'm going to post a response on your talkpage. Please see it there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank's,but the liner note's on the album state the same thing,So as of now I am sick and tired of going round and round with igotistical moron's so do what you please with the edit as I will not becoming back to this site ever as I am disqusted with it's anal policies and hogwash GOOD LUCK TO ALL mdp000798.159.211.130 (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello TransporterMan. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Alexander Mirtchev and dispute resolutions

Hello TransporterMan, I saw the edit you made to Alexander Mirtchev and I would like to start by saying that while I might disagree with your edit, I will accept it.

My question is more general. If one were to look at the revision history of the page, one would notice a long line of reversions. I am familiar with the 3 revert rule, which is why I brought it to the third opinion noticeboard. I would not be surprised if the user with whom I have a disagreement will again remove the current version of the controversy section in its entirety.

I would like to get this issue resolved but the user with whom I have a disagreement seems unwilling to engage me in the talk page. Does your intervention into this page make you something of a de facto arbitrator? Is it appropriate for me to ask you additional questions about the page? If the bickering between myself and RachelleLin continues, what is the next step? KazakhBT (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are no content arbitrators at Wikipedia. Except for a few instances (generally those having legal implications) such as libel, copyright, legal threats, and a couple of others, all decisions are made by consensus. My personal standard is not to get involved with further matters involving an article at which I've given a third opinion, but you can ask for general advice at Editor assistance. If the question involves a living person, you can also ask at the BLP noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Thanks for the help but I am obviously really, really new to this. (It's my very first effort) I was able to get a "citation needed" superscript inserted following the text stream, but I'm not sure if I got the "tag it with" part correct. I tried selecting the test and then inserting a WikiMarkup special character and that just put double brackets around the selected text. So then I de-selected the text and simply pasted in your "{{CN}}" formatting after the text. That gave me the superscripted note as hoped-for. But it was just a superscript after the text and not linked to the text in any way.

Sorry I'm a dufus about this at the moment: hopefully I can learn a bit more quickly after I get through this. Can you tell me if I've done this correctly or if I need to somehow link the text to the "citation needed" reference?

Filbertosis (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant by "linked to the text". The tag simply sits after the text in question and doesn't otherwise link to it. It's just like this (this is what the code would look like):

This is the unsupported text.{{cn}} This the the text after the unsupported text.

That's all there is to it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You're awesome in my book.

Thank you very, very much for chiming in on my Editor Assistance Request. Doniago (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Man. :) I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to review and perhaps comment on the RFC that ensued, but I would also understand if you wanted to stay away from it.

That said, if anything ever comes up here where you feel my expertise could be of use, please don't hesitate to call on me. Thanks again for all of the insight you've offered at both the EAR and the WT:V discussions. Doniago (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN on Friedrich Eckenfelder

This regards a case at DRN, specifically: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Friedrich Eckenfelder Despite arguments to the contrary by User:ChrisGualtieri I think this case remains about user conduct regarding content rather than a dispute over content. I was going to chime in with this and, perhaps, close it and direct the participants over to WP:RfC/U but wanted to check with yourself first on what you thought - Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that I wasn't around earlier, but with the subsequent discussion with ChrisGualtieri, I think this was a good close. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for finding my error.

Thank you for finding the weirdness on the talk page, and I apologize for the error. That did not belong there at all, and certainly should not have been placed where it was, even if it had belonged on that page at all.User talk:Unfriend12 18:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mail

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

--Go Phightins! 21:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

Hello, TransporterMan. For the second time the thread about Juan Manuel de Rosas (a 19th Century Argentine dictator) I opened at the Dispute resolution noticeboard has been closed. The ongoing discussion on the article's talk page is leading nowhere, since neither I nor the other editor are willing to give up on each other's point of view. Unfortunately, although other editors have edited the article in the past couple of days, none of them bothered to take part in the discussion. My request for a third opinion was also closed by an Argentine editor.[17] The present situation demands someone neutral. Someone else that can be part of the discussion and give an end to it. --Lecen (talk) 22:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe it wouldn't harm too much to simply answer me. --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I had (and have) both in Wiki-world and in the real world issues which were of higher priority to me. But I have to admit that I've been reluctant to answer because you're not really going to like my answer and because it is going to be critical of you. I don't like to be critical of people (I'm far less reluctant about criticizing their edits), but since you're pressing for it here's what I think, like it or not: your opponent has raised a goodly number of very specific responses and questions on the talk page and you need to answer them and a real conversation needs to take place between you and him before you go asking for help. I don't see that discussion as being anywhere close to being stuck and needing assistance from dispute resolution, what I see is you either being unwilling to engage in the difficult back and forth discussions which are a normal part of editing at this encyclopedia or engaging in canvassing or both. I'm not willing to help you in that and that's not what dispute resolution is for, either. I truly hope I'm wrong in that assessment, and I apologize if I am, but I don't think that I am. I see you've relisted at the Third Opinion project. There's less discussion required there than is required for a listing at DRN, so perhaps someone will choose to weigh in. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you actually bother to read the discussion? I brought books to back my position. Several. He brought nothing. Read his replies. They are all based on his personal opinion. How could I answer them? It's pointless. I have been clashing with that editor for years now and for the very same same reason. See the thread titled "Removal of sourced information by Belgrano" (Cambalachero was called MBelgrano back then) in here. Two and a half years later and we're still engaged on the very same discussion. The discussion did not start two days ago, but two and half years ago. I want to put an end to that. There are two ways: I might engage in a stupid edit war with him or I might ask for the help of neutral people. It's amazing that you are blocking my legitimate and honest attempts to bring a peaceful and correct end to this matter. For years I've written Featured Articles for Wikipedia. I'm not a novice who knows nothing. All I'm asking is for the help of other editors. --Lecen (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps I'm wrong. I hope you get what you need at 3O. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your ethics suggestions...

Are you aware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dispute Resolution/Proposals/Dispute resolution manual? Seems like THE perfect place to add all that!--Amadscientist (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea and I hadn't thought of it. Thanks and Happy Holidays, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

oh please join

there is a new disput just over the last few minutes please check last 3-4 revisions and postings in talk Van Rensselaer (surname) (unsigned comment by JGVR (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC))

putting policy into practice

• Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 116#Removing Long-Term Unsourced Material is Edit Warring?

You don't understand content and editing policy. Understanding requires thinking about the goals of policy, and reading the various wordings of policy over the years. It also requires remembering that there actually is an editing policy. User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do shows how to put policy into practice, and was taken from policy in the first place. We made a mistake, some years ago, in thinking that if we just left the goal in and removed the instructions on how to achieve it, everyone would be able to figure out, as we did, how to get there. The whole "policy is descriptive not prescriptive" mantra militated too far against the idea that policy should also help and explain. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do, in fact, understand, but looking back at what I said there I did overstate my case when I said, "Such purely bureaucratic removals are, I admit, distasteful, but they're fully supported by policy." I should have said, "Such purely bureaucratic removals are, I admit, distasteful, but you cannot ordinarily be blocked or banned for making such removals," since it was the suggestion that you can be blocked for them that I was reacting to (or thought I was, see below). "Fully supported by policy" was too broad because policy includes some things which are mandatory and some things which are permissive or optional or best practices and policy, in this case, certainly says (even without reference to Wikipedia:Editing policy) that the best practice is do more than simply delete them. (In my defense, however, I had just said, prior to that overbroad statement, "finding sources for the information or tagging it and leaving it in place for some period of time is the best practice".) Frankly, however, I now see that my greatest sin in that discussion was neither a lack of understanding nor overstating my case but going off half-cocked and as a result saying something, as a result, that was, in context, a non sequitur: I was reacting to what I thought was a suggestion that an editor can ordinarily be blocked or banned for making such removals but I have now gone back and read the discussion again and see that no such suggestion was, in fact, present. If the discussion was still open, I would take another mea culpa for that as well. I now see that I should have just kept my mouth shut. Sheepishly, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your time and trouble on the Marseille WP:DRN thread, TransporterMan. I'm sorry I wasn't more familiar with the various guidelines and protocols, and probably acted precipitously in many respects. I'll spend some time working on a better version before editing the article again :). HPotato (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

edits

hi. I never violate 3RR. I'm very careful with that. But thanks for the warning. It's cool. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

talk page

hi TransporterMan. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I responded with some sources, in the talk page. Check them out...here. Thanks. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

sources

hello. I do thank you for taking the time and trouble over this matter. It's sad and disheartening that such a big fuss is made, unnecessarily over this. Apologies. I want to mention...

I have provided at least 3 or 4 sources, stating this point, but they get dismissed as not reliable, very conveniently. I asked, for example, Is DailyCatholic.org reliable enough in your book? Is that "peer-reviewed"? Or is that passed through other hands, for their material to become public? Because DailyCatholic.org said that the Holy Spirit's role was handled in CONSTANTINOPLES's council...not Nicea...in their summations of the lists of councils.

As I said, it doesn't matter. They'll find problems with any site, source, book, ref, dealing with this matter, because they personally just don't want this little elaboration, this little CONTEXTUAL AND LOGICAL ELABORATION, with its precise wording, in the article. So the suppression happens, with all kinds of transparent silly dishonest and weird front excuses. This is a semi "sky blue" matter. Given the fact that the article (and other sources in the article) state this obvious well-known thing already.

The Holy Spirit was hardly discussed in Nicaea (though it was to some extent), compared to the Father and Son, and the Son's person and relation to the Father. It's a historical fact. Sources say it. Catholic (reputable) sources admit it. As well as scholars in the field. And there really shouldn't be all this craziness over this matter. I'm tired of it. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Ebe123's talk page.
Message added 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Take your time, no rush. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

3O

Unfortunately the problem on Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) has not actually been resolved. there was a decision but the Admin-editor is still insisting on an incorrect format for the DAB. no real "primary" status has actually been given to any on the list yet, some are insisting it is proper to set one on the list above all others and in bold... a very out of the ordinary format. Might there be a way you can help still?..JGVR (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

ooop I responded a bit quick thank youJGVR (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had not noticed that you had also filed a request at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Your 3O request would have also been removed for that double listing, as it is inappropriate to file in more than one DR forum at the same time. If the DRN request also fails (as appears likely), I would suggest filing a request for comments or taking the matter to requested moves if that is appropriate (but I also see your objection to that method on the article talk page, so you may not want to go there). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't object to the move I made one before but was reverted. I am all for a move but there so many wasted namespaces as a result of a certain editor insisting on their version of a capital "V" in Dutch names, there must be 1/2 dozen namespaces connected to that article at their insistance as can be seen in this talkpage Henry K. Van Rensselaer...JGVR (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

DRN close

About the dispute resolution thread you closed recently. Currently there is no dispute on content but is a dispute on tags. Obi2canibe started to repeatedly introducing tags again without specifying issues. You closed the discussion stating the location to discuss this is incorrect. Please let me know the correct place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WelupillaisOb (talk • contribs) 05:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page.
Message added 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi, TransporterMan. As you saw, I made a request for mediation. But I have a doubt: what happens if the other parties simply ignore it? For what I could understand after reading the rules the request would be closed. If that's what will happen, what can I do then to resolve the dispute? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot speak alone for the Mediation Committee, but ordinarily if both other parties refuse or ignore the request then the Committee will decline the request. About your only remaining "true" dispute resolution option at that point will be to file a request for comments if you've not done so already (I've not been following the dispute closely, so I don't know if you have or have not). You might also get some assistance, though not strictly dispute resolution assistance, at some of the other specialized noticeboards such as the reliable sources noticeboard, if you've not been there already. Don't try any of those things, however, until your MedCom request has been resolved. If all fails, the day can come that one must drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but you're not there yet. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That's odd. Then the article will remain as it is? Because I noticed that the other editors have made several edits since I opened my request, which means that they will ignore it. I can't believe that the Mediation Committee cannot somehow force them to seek a mediation. It's almost like it wants the dispute to run out of control. I'm trying to avoid edit wars, petty fights and other inappropriate behaviors. All I'm asking is to someone neutral to sit, look at both arguments and declare: "you're right, your're wrong, you're both right, you're both wrong". That's... frustrating. --Lecen (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a function of the Wiki-model of Wikipedia and the ideal of everything being decided by collaboration and consensus, with dispute resolution processes being designed to either assist disputants to come to an agreement of a type which is best for the encyclopedia or to get the community involved to do the same. Mediation, in particular, is intended to facilitate the first type of resolution, but no such resolution requiring compromise and conciliation can be achieved if parties do not wish to participate. There are quite a few folks here — including me — who believe that we need some kind of binding, mandatory process to decide the most intractable content disputes. But many, many different proposals for such a process have been made through the years and each of them has failed to achieve acceptance by the community. I have come to believe that none ever will for the reason I began with here: such a system would fly in the face of the consensus model upon which Wikipedia is built. The closest thing we have to such a system is RFC but, as I mentioned above, though RFC's invite the community to try to reach a consensus either for or against a proposal, many RFC's get insufficient participation from the community to be able to come to a consensus. (Let me close with a word about the Mediation Committee's actual abilities: Though some of the members of the Committee are administrators, the Committee is at its heart merely a group of ordinary editors who have been recognized by the community as having proven dispute resolution skills sufficient, it is hoped, to try to negotiate settlements of the more difficult disputes which arise in Wikipedia. We do not have, either as individual members or as a Committee, any extra or special authority to manipulate or force outcomes. Indeed, about the only special "power" any mediator has is the right to control the discussion at the mediation page to the same extent that any user has the right to control the discussion on the user's own talk page, which is considerably more control than a user has at any talk page other than his own — see the Mediation Policy for more detail about mediators' authority during mediation — but that, of course, is only if the disputants choose to participate.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It will be quite hard to find consensus when there is only me and the other two guys. I believe Mediation Committee could accept the request. It would force the other two editors to participate and work within a community. Isn't that the idea behind Wikipedia? But I appreciate your sincere words. Since I'm entirely focused on writing articles I wasn't aware of how flawed content mediation was. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

got your message, please remove it from the proctor DRN now, thank you in advance.

Hi got your message you put in Proctor DRN, please remove it from the Proctor dispute, so it doesn't interfere with discussion flow. I will see if I can remove it. I will be more careful to make sure editing on the right thread, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhouse expert (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It appears that you got it, and I have no objection to its removal, but you might want to note for future reference that removal of other editor's postings on talk pages or noticeboards without their permission can very quickly get you in hot water here. That's the reason I originally collapsed your comments that were posted in the wrong section and didn't remove them until they were copied to the right place. But all is good now, except that you're still not signing your posts with four ~'s, like this: ~~~~. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

regarding Emotional Freedom Techniques, I make the edits and direct others to the talk page, and my edits are simply reverted, without any input on the talk page. No justification is given, other than the fact that the other editors don't like it. I would like to re-open the dispute resolution board.Pottinger's cats (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you can't. All dispute resolution processes require some degree of discussion on the article talk page, and DRN requires more than most. Since only one other editor has responded on the talk page, you might try Third Opinion where the discussion bar is somewhat lower. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing a DRN case

TransporterMan, I just attempted to mediate my first DRN case, and it's going nowhere, so I think a formal mediation is the next step, but from a technical standpoint, how do I close the thread on DRN? Thanks. Go Phightins! 02:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Presuming that you want to close it as failed, change

{{DR case status|needassist}}

to

{{DR case status|failed}},

delete the line that reads

<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC) --><!-- PLEASE REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD. (Otherwise the thread won't be archived until the date shown.) -->

Where that line was before you deleted it, insert on a line by itself

{{DRN archive top|reason=Failed. [explain your reasoning here and make recommendations for next steps]}}.

At the very bottom of the discussion section add

{{DRN archive bottom}}

as the very last line in the listing. Do a preview to make sure that everything collapses correctly. That's all it takes. Thank you for your hard work on that dispute, and I hope you'll continue your good work at DRN. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mediation required

Hi. How do you do, TransporterMan? I think we need help in Talk:Reboot (computing): There is a discussion that does not involve a dispute (and hence not suited for DRN) but needs a mediator. Just the shear amount of stray details takes more than me to filter through. Any help would be appreciated. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My time online at WP will be limited over the next few days, so I don't know that I can be of any help. The RFC may attract some additional editors, however, so I'd suggest that you just let it run and see what it produces. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks anyway. I think I'll just try to swim my way into the detail and keep my fingers crossed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Merit for 3O

Hi. I hope I am not bothering you but a user is asking me about the merit of a 3O in a specific case. I wonder if you could take a quick look here: User talk:Codename Lisa#Third Opinion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How to proceed in this case

Hello, TransporterMan

There is an edit dispute that I do not know how to act about. So, I thought I'd better consult you before proceeding. (Or shall I say before making a fool out of myself, being shot down and being called a liar!) Here is the case: A few days ago, I added Windows 1.0 logo to Windows 1.0 article, only to see it reverted in spite of the fact that I have cited Microsoft confirming that it is their logo. Now, you don't see much discussion in the article talk page because the discussion is located on the image talk page ... which is on Wikimedia Commons. The discussion is very heated and desperately in need of mediation.

Which venue for dispute resolution do you suggest?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that there's enough discussion at Talk:Windows 1.0#Iffy logo and User talk:Dmcq#Windows 1.0 logo removal request to take it to DRN without referencing anything at Commons, but it appears to me that the discussion at commons:File talk:Windows logo and watermark - 1985.svg#Origins of the logo subsequent to you posting your question here has now agreed that the logo is genuine and I doubt that there will be any further dispute. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

About who should I invite

Hello, TransporterMan

I was hoping to get an advice from you about who I should invite to a DRN discussion.

There is an issue with license agreement of Microsoft Office 2013, already discussed twice in Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 § Retail editions locked to the first PC they are installed on and Talk:Microsoft Office 2013 § The "Locked to One Machine Forever" restriction is critical and needs to be mentioned in the lede. But a recent revert from User:Dogmaticeclectic has made it clear-cut that we need more discussion. Now, when I open the discussion, who should I invite? For example, should I invite User:Sonicdrewdriver just because he made one comment in the second discussion? Or User:Barpoint? He seems content with the current state but am I right?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Invite everyone who might dispute whatever is worked out at DRN, otherwise any solution worked out at DRN may not "stick." Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN talk page - personal attack

"This would be helpful with the likely upcoming WP:ANI discussion about Ryan's tendentious editing. Zad68" I have removed it as a personal attack by threatening. However the original editor has restored it. I also think even if there is a doubt as if its a personal attack per content, being placed on the DRN talk it looks like a personal attack even more. It just came out of nowhere, irrelevant to the current DRN discussion. Thank you. Ryanspir (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a Methodist...

Based on [18] --Orlady (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

And this. Have taken it to the talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ayo thar1

Hello TransporterMan, Eduemoni↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Thank you very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Misguided

The users are having their edits stalked. Using a new account to avoid that stalking is appropriate. Unsigned edits won't prevent the edit stalking which you've facilitated by posting to AN.--Tishapocks (Apropos my 3O request and your comment on my talk page.) (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Using an alternate account to avoid scrutiny is improper sockpuppetry. See WP:SCRUTINY. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on the WP:RESCON talkpage. Yes, Project Conflict Resolution is primarily for conduct issiues and Project Dispute resolution are for content. I hope you will consider contributing even if you don't join. You do good work.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, so do you. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Mendaliv's talk page.
Message added 04:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

comments at "dispute Resolution" notice board.

Dear Transporterman, I saw your comments on the dispute resolution page regarding the Greater Middle East topic. I will contact Washington Prime again to invite him to enter his comments. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.25.103 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A coupe de main

Hey TransporterMan, I see you've been busy on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Can you please fix whatever's wrong in the "List of trade unions in the United Kingdom and FTSE 100 Index" section/template? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I was offline all weekend this weekend. I think another DRN volunteer fixed it, however. If I'm wrong, let me know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Third Opinion

You removed my request for a third party opinion on the grounds that there is an open DRN request. That request was filed by a different user for different reasons. I also don't see any text on the third party opinion page that indicates that a request for third party opinion on a specific editorial dispute between me and another editor is inappropriate when another user has issued a DRN.Inijones (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a common principle of dispute resolution at Wikipedia (it is mentioned in the 3O FAQ) and has been a common practice at 3O for as long as I've been working there. Putting disputes in multiple venues spreads the discussion across too many venues, in addition to the article discussion page, and can in some instances be forum shopping. Also bear in mind that 3O's are not appropriate when more than two editors are involved in the dispute and there's a boatload involved in that one. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

My request for comment is on my exchanges with only one other editor. the "intervening comments" appear to be tag-team editing, where a group of closely-knit editors have a pre-arranged editing strategy, regarding what edits are permissible and what must be blocked. But the intervening remarks were not anything I commented on. My request is for comment on my exchange with one other editor.Inijones (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I will not remove your request again, but I suspect that another volunteer will do so. You cannot simply choose to limit which exchanges you wish to involve in the dispute; if other editors are involved, then they are involved. If you believe that there is improper solicitiation between other editors, then the proper response is to make a complaint at WP:ANI, but bear in mind that the formation of agreement between editors, via coalitions or otherwise, is the very manner in which Wikipedia is intended to work via the formation of consensus. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk pages

Thank you for your third opinion on Georg Gänswein. I do have one question left out of that affair - you mention it was incorrect of me to expect the user's talk page to remain in place while waiting for WP:3O. What's the right way to deal with the situation where the editor in question won't respond on the article's talk page, will only use his own talk page? Just leave it for the 3rd party to see only my comments and the edit histories? Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no perfect way to address a page-blanker, but the simplest way is to provide a diff to the version of his talk page that has the complete discussion when you make your dispute resolution request. That way the DR volunteer shouldn't refuse your request for a lack of discussion. In terms of getting such an editor to engage in discussion, the proper method is to make a request on the article talk page and leave a note on their user talk page pointing to it. If they reply on their user talk page instead of on the article talk page, copy their response to the article talk page and leave a note on their user talk page saying that you have done so and have responded there so that the discussion can stay with the article. If they simply won't respond at all, make a second request, give them plenty of time — there's no hurry and some editors don't edit every day — and if you still can't get them to respond, then make the edit or reversion in the article text. If they revert, then instead of reverting make a complaint at WP:ANI setting out everything that you did and how you've given them every chance to discuss and you'll probably get some help from a sympathetic sysop. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow that path. Respond on article talk page and user talk page, if necessary copy response from user talk page to article talk page and leave note on user talk page about the copy. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

3O at Lohara dynasty

HI, and thanks for your input at Lohara dynasty. I think that there may be a misunderstanding because the encyclopedia that you refer to is not in fact used in the article. It was raised merely to point out that "usurp" has been used as a description for what happened. The key to the dispute seems to be Lowkeyvision's insistence that the article is somehow biassed against Muslims. Hence, they want to add some content that (to me) appears not to be relevant. Lowkeyvision has already "conceded" (their word) the point about describing something as a usurpation. You may wish to look at other threads on the page and also their block log. - Sitush (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for missing that last message: I thought that they had conceded but it seems that was based on an unacceptable quid pro quo, ie: they'll accept "usurp" as a valid descriptor if I accepted adding sort-of glorifying details of Muslim rulers who came after the Hindu dynasty had folded. It is a mess all round. As an apolitical British atheist, I have no vested interest either way in this one. - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not try to instill bias the third opinion giver and focus your talk on the article page. Thank you. (Lowkeyvision (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC))

Talk:Forced adoption in Australia

Many thanks for your 3O input. LittleBen (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Jose Antonio Vargas". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 10 April 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Skype/Google Hangout/Phone call

Hey there, do you have time to do a Skype/Google Hangout/phone call over the next few days? If so, let me know a good time for you and I'll lock in a time. Hope you're well, Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 10:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

I know that we're not supposed to use our talk pages as blogs, but I hope that I have earned at least one exception. I've been a lifelong movie buff, starting in my childhood and culminating in taking film history courses in college, along with writing film reviews for my home town newspaper when I was home in the Summer (at least until the local theater owner — we only had two theaters, a "sit down" and a drive-in — got mad because I actually said some movies weren't worth seeing and threatened to pull his ads from the paper if they didn't "fire" me, with quotes because I was doing it for free; they decided the revenue was more important than the reviews). I've often said that if I hadn't become a lawyer, I would have become a film critic. I've never stopped loving the movies. Oscar night has always been one of the high points of my year, not because I think the Oscars necessarily pick the best films, but because they are a celebration of film.

Among critics, my first goddess was Pauline Kael. We didn't always see eye to eye, but her work was authoritative and thoughtful. But like millions of others, I later came to know Roger Ebert through his thumbs-up-and-thumbs-down TV show with the late Gene Siskel, "At the Movies". With Ebert, I had found my mentor, though I never met him. Our tastes and reasoning about the movies coincided almost perfectly and he had thought through and was able to express ideas about film that I felt, but was not able to conceptualize.

And now he's gone, and I'm really, really sad. He wrote up to the very end, with his last review just last week and his last blog post just day before yesterday. Though he had been sick for a long, long time, it seemed like he would just go on forever. I know it's trite, but I can't believe he's gone.

Thank you Roger, for guiding me all these years. I've not made it through all of your Great Movies yet, but you've already given me two that are on my all-time best movies list: Ikiru and Playtime (and, indeed, all the films of Jacques Tati) and have helped me understand and appreciate many, many more. I'm sure I'm going to discover more that until you recommended them to me, I didn't know that I couldn't live without.

Goodbye, Roger, damn I'm going to miss you. You were my cinematic hero. Two thumbs up.

— TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

drn

Hi,

i'm a little confused about your comment that there is "no current talkpage discussion." -- there is. I admitted there that i have a problem assuming good faith with a particular editor who is, imho, disruptive. The previous, protracted edit war and discussion, now archived, drove away a number of other editors. a previous rfc/u was called "political" so i've been down that road already.

so i'm not sure what to do here. advice appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you had admitted that fact before I closed the request, but DRN (and all other Wikipedia content dispute resolution processes) requires current talk page discussion before a dispute will be accepted. Just saying that you know that there hasn't been any, but you don't want to do it isn't enough to avoid that requirement. If you don't wish to engage with that particular editor, that's your choice, but your about your only alternative is to raise the matter on the article talk page, explain why you do not care to be involved in the discussion, and then walk away and see if anyone else cares enough about it to engage with them. If you truly believe that the other editor's editing is disruptive, within the Wikipedia meaning of that concept, then that's a reason to take him or her to SPI or RFC/U and try to get the blocked or topic-banned, but if it falls short of that, your only real choice is to do what I just suggested. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The edit warring in October that i made reference to was over the exact same issue content-wise. I don't feel like I'm out of line in saying that I've already discussed it extensively. the exact same concerns apply, and were clearly never resolved adequately. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 17:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

in regards to the rfc/u, i feel like this editor's activity and talk page statements at articles like Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Criminal black man stereotype probably contributed to the influx of commenters that appeared completely unfamiliar with the dispute and behavior at White privilege, and further, mainly made character references and cast aspersions on the motivations of myself and the other RfC/U filers. We were not even asking for particularly significant concessions like topic bans, more like apology, discussion, and AGF. I believe this user's behavior consists of at minimum tendentious editing, and it seems clear to me that their behavior has been disruptive both at White privilege and at other pages. I've tried to the best of my ability to AGF, and have even noted my difficulty in doing so based on history. I've tried to work through what mechanisms are available for dealing with disputes, because I believed, and still do believe, perhaps naively, that this is manageable. I've gotten involved at DRN in order to try and build my skills in managing disputes. But despite all this, all I am finding is roadblocks when it comes to the persistent disruptive behavior of a longtime editor. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reopened the dispute, with a note to other volunteers on the DRN talkpage. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Content vandalism of "2012 Italian shooting in the Arabian Sea" article by Italian origin IPs

Kindly help do something about the severe content vandalism. I have tried to revert the page to it's last stable situation but it has been repeatedly vandalised with POV text over the past 48 hours.81.240.143.138 (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Not much I can do, I'm not an administrator. Try WP:ANI or WP:RPP. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 16:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 16:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)