User talk:TransporterMan

SEMI-RETIRED

I may not see talk page messages left here or elsewhere for a long time. Please email me if you need to get my attention.

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of September, 2023.

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, unless it is marked with "(Not watching)", in which case it's just an informational posting and I am not watching your page and you will need to contact me here on this page if you want to discuss the message
If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered.

This will ensure that conversations remain together!

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by when more than 10 sections are present.

Requesting inputs

Requesting inputs @ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Attention to updating of MOS guidelines
This request has been made to you since you seem to have been interested in updating policies @ Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal vide your then reverted edit

Bookku (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Third Option Request

I am personally glad that the request was reverted. I am not at all surprised to hear that it didn't comply with the instructions at the Third Opinion page as you put it, and had a discussion which involved more than two editors. In many ways, the issue really stemmed from edits on the Bob Morley page, where there continues to be an ongoing discussion. I'm not aware of a discussion on WP:RSN currently, though, just ones on Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech. Historyday01 (talk) 18:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. The discussion is at WP:BLPN, not WP:RSN and I've appended a note to that effect to my earlier notice. Thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention in Dispute resolution

Hello Sir, kindly intervene in my dispute with user Ekdalian. The link of the DR page is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. It is related to Baidya article. Thankyou. Anirban Kolkata (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your request for dispute resolution should be made at Dispute Resolution Noticeboard after carefully reading and following the instructions there. Requests cannot be made from https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. I do not take private requests for dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In memory

Today: in memoriam Jerome Kohl who said (In Freundschaft): "and I hope that they have met again in the beyond and are making joyous music together" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case request

You have been mentioned in a request for arbitration by DTParker1000 - possibly they consider you involved in some way, possibly they just asked you for advice as someone uninvolved (it's not immediately clear to me). Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Rio Grande 223. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Grande 223 case request declined

The Rio Grande 223 case request has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, House Blaster (talk · he/they) 21:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

DRN Assistance

Hello, im trying to use the resolution system, specifically for the Manosphere article.

It feels like too petty of a dispute to justify opening an RFC but the talk page has failrd, and its just broken down into people not responding and making accusations of misconduct over nonsense on all sides.

The crux of the issue is about the presentation of the language in the intro to the article, and the distinction between Natural (category theory) and arbitrary categories.

Specifically, the current language presents the article subject as an objective, coherent, extant, natural category, but constructs it by specifying members rather than criteria.

The talk page details at length the problems with this logically, why it creates a form of lie by structure, and how regardless of the source, of the structure of the material is presented in a way that presents subjective external frameworks as natural facts, thats not NPOV and its out of the scope of any experts authority to disregard the rules of logic.

Woukd you be willing to review the discussion and help me with setting up the appropriate request for dispute resolution.

No edits have yet occured, as, i elected to seek consesnsus before making a change Azeranth (talk) 11:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]