User talk:TransporterMan

---

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.

Just a quick FYI

It's not that I'm avoiding being active at DRN, but some of the disputes dictate recusal while others are already being handled before I'm aware of them. Just wanted you to know that I do have it on my watchlist, and participate when the op presents itself. Hope that is adequate for inclusion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How to become an auto confirmed editor

I was wondering about how to edit silver locks on some pages? Please reply asap.Peace out 14:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)

See here for the details. You ought to be autoconfirmed already unless you're editing through Tor. But even if you're autoconfirmed, you can't remove the silver locks: they won't interfere with you editing the article if you're autoconfirmed, but only a administrator can remove them. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I sent you a massage and you haven't replied. Please reply asap.Peace out 04:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)

Sorry for messaging you to much but I was wondering how to help edit peoples articles for summation.Peace out 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit king2 (talk • contribs)

See my reply, above. If that doesn't answer your question, please be more specific. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nigel Farage

Hi TM, firstly thanks for the time you spent on Nigel Farage although it couldn't be resolved. I frequently edit political WP:BLP's where I'm not an admmirer but as with Farage I only use WP:Suggested sources#Current news -sources almost all Brits would accept including in this case, Farage. I'm new to mediation but strongly believe the source is correct and the point is important. What options (if any) are available now? Regards JRPG (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Taking all things into consideration, I think that a RFC is about your only practical option at this point. You might go back to DRN and try there with the proper notice to the parties, but since only one other editor agreed to mediation it's not very likely that they'll join in at DRN, either, and little or nothing can be accomplished there without the participation of all or most parties to the dispute. All forms of content dispute resolution here are voluntary, and no one is required to participate if they do not care to do so, except for RFC. Technically, no one is required to participate in an RFC, either, but if they don't participate then their position will probably not be considered in the closing. If you are going to do something, however, I'd suggest that you do it soon: When discussion has stopped about a dispute and doesn't resume fairly quickly, a lot of editors will presume that the dispute is over and most DR forums (but not RFC) will decline a case if much time has passed since the discussion died away. Finally, none of what I have said here should be taken as an implied indication that I think that you either have a tenable or winning position or that I think that you should go forward in any of these ways or otherwise continue the dispute; I do not have, imply, or express any opinion, pro or con, about any of those things and this is merely procedural advice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again TM -I'm fully aware that you offer resolution advice and not judgement but I realise from what you said I should have got things moving more quickly. Regards JRPG (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion, Third Opinion

Hey, I noticed that you regularly tend to the Third Opinion page and I wanted to ask your opinion on something. Was I wrong to question a Third Opinion contributor's English skills on their talk page? They have reacted badly to my comments and I don't wish to antagonise them any further. Here's the conversation: User_talk:Being.human#Third_Opinion. Thank you. -=Troop=- (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong? No. When someone responds with, "If the numbers are to go by, then I have the majoritarian English." how can you be wrong? Stepping in where angels fear to tread, perhaps, but not wrong. Remember CIR. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

it is wrong to canvass on others page. It is wrong to help with negative, discouraging and patronising attitude. It is wrong to "invent" an issue when none existed. Editors I helped with the Dr, have no problem, so how did this become such big issue? Why could not you continue talking to me as mature person? Why create an issue out of nothing and then drag more people into it? It unnecessarily puts me on wrong foot. Do not tell people in a patronising and discouraging tone to stop helping others. You could have given a suggestion with respect. Treat me as equal as you would want me to treat you. Your intention might have been good, Your attitude and way was wrong. I am disappointed. Inventing issue, canvassing, making it bigger by dragging others without further discussing with me with a positive attitude, all wrong. I want you to be open to helping other in a right way. Please pick the right battles to fight. Pick the right issues to give feedback to. If someone complains about comprehension, then go ahead and give that kind of suggestion, otherwise let is pass. If you still chose to provide suggestion, do not tell people to stop helping. Know the difference that people would put more effort in editing articles and may not do so on talk page. Did you, or anyone whoever reed so far, have any problem in comprehending me? If not, then it is wrong to "pick upon", that wastes time. I am disappointed. I will use this as an opportunity to show the older editors who they might be pushing lot of new people without intending to do so. Please be open to learn this behavioral correction. I will learn from this, but please be open to learning. Realise that you are part of the problem. In fact no problem existed until you turned this into one and then made it bigger by dragging too many people in it. I helped someone on DR, they have no problem, you had, and I confronted you and you dragged others. Why? Being.human (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

DRN mass message delivery

Hey TransporterMan, I need your help again with a mass message to all DRN volunteers. The message is a newsletter at User:Yashovardhan Dhanania/DRN Newsletter 1 (substituting the page is fine as I have used templates like BASENAME to get the user name). What do you think about the newsletter? Any changes required? If it seems alright, just send it to all volunteers at the DRN. If you are busy, let me know and I can request this at the mass message senders page. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm traveling through Sunday; if I get the chance I'll be glad to work on this, but it may be the first part of next week before I have a long enough chunk of free time. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not a problem! Do it whenever you are free! Happy travelling Yashovardhan (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey TransporterMan, still busy? Yashovardhan (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder; it's been hectic since I returned. The newsletter looked great and has been sent. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1

You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list.
Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Bi-monthly Volunteer Awards

Please have a look at WP:DRN/VA. (This message is being only sent to active contributors of the DRN. Other comments are also welcome though) Yashovardhan (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Help needed with mediation / dispute resolution

Hi,

I am new to the editing of Wikipedia and request some assistance.

There is a page on a Jewish (historical?) figure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elazar_Shach

On the page, a user has used an opinion piece article as a source in several locations. For example: "In Haaretz, Shahar Ilan described him as "an ideologue" and "a zealot who repeatedly led his followers into ideological battles"." and the reference: 'Haaretz' November 2, 2001 "Rabbi Shach – a man of wars and battles"

I deleted this text and the user re-instated it. I suggested to him on his talk page that this statement is opinion and not something which belongs on an "historical" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debresser#Rav_Shach_Page

He replied: Since your post fails to assume good faith, I decline to comment on it.

Based on his previous edits and comments it seems that he has some form of personal issue with the content.

I would like to request that the content be examined and if found to be unsatisfactory, be removed. If I am incorrect in my understanding, and this is something which meets the Wikipedia guidelines, I am happy to except that.

Thanks in advance for your time. Daniel.

HenryDanielDance (talk)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HenryDanielDance —Preceding undated comment added 06:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Because of my involvement with the various dispute resolution procedures here, I generally do not take on private requests for assistance. Please consult the Dispute resolution policy and choose one of the procedures there. If only you and one other editor are involved in the dispute, the Third opinion project would be a good place to start. But remember that all dispute resolution processes require substantial talk page discussion first, preferably at the article talk page. The discussion at Debresser's talk page would serve, but once the conduct allegations are filtered out — content dispute resolution will not handle conduct issues — there's really not much discussion there about the content. Here's a quick guide to distinguish between content and conduct: If what's been said is about the other editor, it's conduct; if it's about the content of the article, it's content. Finally, if the other editor will not engage (and I'm not saying that Debresser wouldn't, this is merely procedural advice without reflecting on anything that has actually happened), consider the advice at DISCFAIL. Oh, and one more thing to try, and one which is far less bureaucratic than dispute resolution, you can make a request for advice at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC) PS: On re-reading your note, above, it occurs to me that you may not be seeking dispute resolution so much as pointing out something which you believe is a problem and asking for someone else to — to mix metaphors — pick up the torch and run with the ball for you. I get that from "I would like to request that the content be examined and if found to be unsatisfactory, be removed." I'm sorry, but that's not the way things work here. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and anyone includes you. If you think that there's a problem with the material you can either work for its removal yourself through BRD and dispute resolution, or you can post a note to the article talk page clearly stating your concern and hope that someone sees it and chooses to act upon it. There's no other process in Wikipedia to just say, "Here's a problem. I'm outta here, but someone ought to fix it." — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got 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.

See response at your talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Against John from Idegon

You closed a badly filed DRN request that appeared to be a vaguely stated conduct issue against John from Idegon. I will only add that the complaint illustrates what I think is wrong with the policy do not bite the newcomers. While it is a good rule, it is far too often used by combative editors who claim that they are newcomers and should not be bitten, when they are being cautioned or instructed, or even maybe when they need to be bitten. If an editor has been editing long enough to know the policy WP:BITE, they are not a newcomer and should no longer quote it in their own defense. Oh well. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to comment on TO ruling

First of all, thank you for taking the time to evaluate my TO request regarding a possible edit war on Grand Prix 2. I will take the time to read the "literature" you've directed me to, before engaging further on editing the article. I do however, have a few questions for you:

• Would you be able to evaluate the current content of the article, possibly compare it to the version that was reverted, and give your opinion on its Talk page? (I really believe the current version needs a lot of work to pass as a well-written article. Then again, I might be wrong).
• Do you have any quick suggestions on how to engage with an anonymous, IP-user, without a Talk page, and otherwise seemingly unwilling to have a discussion about the content (s)he's adding back? (The revert of my edit was not the only instance on the article's history when a puppet brought back information about the game's modding community - the contended content which, in my opinion, does not meet WP:N).
• Since after my edit was reverted, many legitimate changes were made by other editors, wouldn't it be wrong for me to ignore all these good improvements to the article just to bring back my edit? (Currently the "bad" version stands solely because of this - because I don't want to throw away good contributions made by legitimate editors).
• Isn't it counter-productive to place the bureaucratic burden on good-faith registered users, instead of unnamed, puppets? (The point being: a good, comprehensive, neutral and sourced edit, backed by extensive discussion, edit summaries with relevant information, as well as a careful learning process of Wikipedia rules, takes a lot more time than the 1 second that it takes a puppet to revert it. What can we do about it?)

Thanks in advance for your time. Ebacci EN (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate that an IP editor is being disruptive — and you can demonstrate that by following DISCFAIL, though it's a little tougher with IP editors — then you can request semi-page protection. Because I work at all the moderated content DR venues, I don't become involved in private DR at article talk pages. As I mentioned, the Teahouse would be a good place to get evaluation. "[W]ouldn't it be wrong for me to ignore all these good improvements to the article just to bring back my edit"? Yes, you'll need to manually reinsert your edit. It may be a lot of work, but that's what will be needed. I don't know what you mean by your last bullet point, above. What bureaucratic burden? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)