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.

Convolution Talk Page

TransporterMan - Thanks for your help, time, comments, and recent input on the Talk page of 'Convolution'. Totally respected what you mentioned there. You taught us users what to do in a diplomatic and highly respectable way - which is definitely in the good spirits of Wikipedia. Everything will be fine over there now. Greatly appreciated. KorgBoy (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers and law students' signatures needed for Supreme Court amicus brief in favor of publishing the law

Hello, given your userbox I thought you might be interested in helping Carl Malamud's case for the public domain, crucial also for Wikisource: https://boingboing.net/2019/04/25/happy-law-day.html . Best regards, Nemo 21:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Re-reviewing the request

Following my request for 3O in TP of Women's rights in Iran, as the link illustrates, It is hard to accept user:LouisAragon as 3O. Is it possible another one gives the third opinion? Regards! Saff V. (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No. Third Opinion is only for disputes between exactly two editors. LouisAragon's entry into the discussion was a third opinion even if he did not intend it to be a Third Opinion under the Third Opinion project. In any event, three editors are now involved in the dispute and it no longer qualifies for an opinion under Third Opinion. If you wish additional dispute resolution, consider Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or make a Request for Comments, but in either case carefully read and follow the instructions at those venues before doing so. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate for your advices!Saff V. (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

EOKA

Thanks for jumping in at EOKA's Talk Page. I am not very certain if the discussion can go on as the other user said: " But if you can't see where the problem is then I have nothing more to say to you.". The problem, according to his view, is that the material I am adding is POV. My answer is that it is what the RS is saying. I am afraid that the discussion is dead. Should I ask for help at 3rd opinion, or should I wait some more? Thanks. Cinadon36 06:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that another editor has joined in at the article talk page, the dispute no longer qualifies for Third Opinion. 3O is only available when exactly two editors are involved in the dispute. Consult the Dispute Resolution policy for additional dispute resolution options. Ordinarily, the next stop would be Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, but you could jump straight to Request for Comments. Other editors are not required to participate at DRN if they do not care to do so and the case will be rejected if essential parties fail to participate. They're also not required to participate in an RFC but their position probably won't be considered if they don't, but note that RFCs generally run for 30 days. In either case carefully read and follow the instructions before filing. Finally, since this dispute is over whether your proposed edit is POV, before doing either of those things, you might ask for an evaluation at Point of View Noticeboard. Please note that all I've said here is merely procedural and I express no opinion about the merits of either party's position in the dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate! Cinadon36 06:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

DRN

Do you DRN much anymore? MedCom gone, DRN I look at nowadays and....ergh. That's not what it was supposed to be when I started it...moderated discussion where no one can actually talk to each other. What's left here. 3O any good nowadays? Steven Crossin 08:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't do much DR any more except for bureaucratic housekeeping and, rarely, giving the odd 3O. Some would, of course, say that all my 3O's have been odd ;-) 3O does still seem to be reasonably robust, but Robert has carried DRN pretty much by himself for quite a while now with only the occasional new volunteer showing up for a couple of cases. Since he does the majority of the work, new volunteers probably think his style of moderation is the default one (but it's also kind of my style, too, since that kind of control is what I know from the real world). I've wondered if it might be of benefit to the encyclopedia to reopen MEDCAB, but just can't work up any enthusiasm to put in the effort. I'm also no longer online in a consistent, predictable way since I retired from my RW employment (and have our first grandchild, who we care for a couple of days a week) and am loath to undertake anything online that requires an ongoing commitment. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, good old MedCab. For me, I just don't personally like the rigid form of DR as a blanket rule. Sure, whack them with a stick and make them get in line if they misbehave during DR, but not at the start, gotta keep discussion free. I actually had a chat with kim bruning today (you probably don't recognise the name, but he was one of the originals of DR when I started. It's something I'd still like to do honestly, but I dunno if there's a place for me, and it, anymore. Steven Crossin 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Decided to {{sofixit}} and picked up a few DRN cases. Feels like the good ol' days! Steven Crossin 21:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that this would be a reliable source for the claim that Louise d'Artois died from typhus? : Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. (1991). The Last Empress – The Life and Times of Zita of Austria-Hungary 1893–1989. If Google Books is correct, this book likewise contains this information. I can't access this book itself, though. Thus, I don't know what its source for this information is.

Also, as a side question, you believe that The Month is an unreliable source, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Taken in the abstract - and in many cases, the Devil is in the details (and in whether there's something objectionable about the source that's not obvious or that there are better sources available) - it would appear to me that Life and Times would be a reliable source. It's certainly a reliable publisher. On the other hand, this point about that person seems to be minor (the important thing in that book would appear to be that they died, not so much how they died), so a source that focuses more on them in particular, rather than in passing, would be preferred. But this one ought to do until that one comes along. As for The Month I would, in general, agree that it looks more like an unreliable self-published house journal than a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and reliability, but it's a closer question and "reliable for what?" is always a relevant question. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, TransporterMan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC). 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.

Steven Crossin 14:32, 8 July 2019 (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. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - your thoughts requested

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I emailed you thru Wikkipedia

I’m not sure how all this works. This is my first time at any of this. CMTBard (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're trying to recriot support in your campaign to add weasel phrases on vaccines and autism, that is a really bad idea. Really bad. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Guy:, just FYI he wasn't seeking any support for his position in your dispute with him, just some information about how Wikipedia works. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Dispute, Draft:Cynthia Slater

Hello. I have left a dispute notice on the talk page of the DRF, as unfortunately I cannot access the form despite my preferences on affirmative. I would very much appreciate any help you might give on this matter. Thank you. Mr Kalm (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)