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, so I will see your response
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.

Thanks!

N5iln has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Non-free content question

{{helpme}} Copyright–silent Sites: Is there a policy or guideline or essay or something which gives (in reference to the WP:ELNEVER prohibition on linking to sites which violate copyright) guidance on how to evaluate a site which:

which uses material which obviously does not belong to the site owner, but
which is totally silent about whether or not the site has the right to use it?

I'm not seeking to further an argument with anyone nor gore an ox, I'm just trying to figure out what to do and not do. --TransporterMan (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Are you talking about websites or Wikipedia articles? m.o.p 18:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you hadn't already referred to it, I would have referred to WP:ELNEVER! If the material obviously does not belong to the site owner, we can't link to it, as it is a known copyright violation. For the latter case, there is no hard and fast rule - if you believe that the work is the original work of the site owner, link to it, if not don't! If in doubt, I'd say leave it out - but of course, it may be possible to contact the website owner and get clarification from them. Realistically, each of these need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and as far as I am aware, there is no guidance on evaluating such sites.

Perhaps if you gave specific examples, we can give more relevant advice - I'm assuming it's to do with Sky Ride? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for replying. I'm talking about the propriety of links in an External Links section of a Wikipedia article to non-Wikipedia webpages which use material which they obviously did not create (e.g. historic photographs) but on which they do not say one way or another whether the images are public domain or whether or how the site has obtained the right to use the material. And, yes, the link I added at Sky Ride to [1] raised the question, but I'm more concerned about learning the principle than getting a ruling on that particular link. TransporterMan (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, it's really on a case-by-case basis. I'd say that that particular link would be unsuitable as it's a link to a forum - which are not generally reckoned to be reliable sources of information, as anyone (usually) can register and leave comments -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. TransporterMan (talk)

Knoxville Transporter Bridge

If you read this edit on the Sky Ride talk page and saw the discussion about the Knoxville, Tennessee, transporter bridge/aerial tramway, you might be interested in knowing that it was probably in use for only 3-4 months at the most (and perhaps as little as 2) before it broke down, killed someone, and never reopened due to the resulting lawsuits, per this account (be sure to read the comments at the end of the article). TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your third opinion!

Thanks for weighing in on pleonasm! At this point, I'll let it sit. If the other user changes his mind and agrees to remove the quote, that'd be great; if not, I'll let it sit there until some other editor comes by (maybe after Aladdin Sane and I have forgotten all about this) and they can make the call.

I appreciate your help!

--Narsil (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O at List of Avatar: The Last Airbender characters

Hi, we edit conflicted when both trying the give the 3O at the above article. All yours, but I tossed in an opinion anyway. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neirr article

		The Mediation Award
		Thank for your 3O Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O Award

		The Third Opinion Award
		For creating the Third Opinion Award! :-) ...and for all the other work you've done recently to improve the Third Opinion project Mildly Mad^T_C 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Van Halen

See talk. Note please identify the points I made, which were from a neutral standpoint. Signature:--Rickens (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't repost

Please read the post and don't repost it! Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll send you an e-mail. You simply got caught up in bigger picture by accident. You did nothing wrong for being lost in something you didn't and couldn't know about. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look forward to your email. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent via wikipedia mail. Take care, --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3O - back off outsiders danger zone

That's a hostile response to someone not on the 3O list offering a third opinion! That wikiproject needs to come with a warning. I'll offer to go keel over. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP, as I said in email, not hostile at all, just cleanup and very glad you jumped in. Glad you're joining us at WP:3O. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit. I read about the 3O on the board, added a third opinion, and you closed the request for a third opinion, because a third editor was involved in the dispute! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea

Hi. As you will see from the Talk:Swansea page, there's a little controversy brewing. I didn't realise, when I entered the great Monopoly debate, that there was already a request in for a third opinion. Please could you review the situation and find a "truly independent" third party to satisfy User:Welshleprechaun? Deb (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion removed

If I cant get a third opinion, what would be another option to resolve this type of dispute? Dan56 (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR, especially the items below Third Opinion in the box on the right–hand side. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 07:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there is always WP:STICK, too. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 07:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Union City, New Jersey

Thanks for your imput on above page. I have made suggestion which addresses the smaller issue in the wider context of the entire section/article. If you have a moment.Djflem (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment on new proposals. Having opined, the rest, I fear, is up to you and the other editors of that article. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Vandalism Response]

Apologies for the 'apparent vandalism'. This is a shared computer. The individual will be severely reprimanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.113.92 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday Sherlock Holmes, 2010

A very happy 156th birthday to Mr. Sherlock Holmes. I hope these greetings find you still well supplied with royal jelly and thus in the best of health. Please give my warm greetings to Dr. Watson. Your most humble servant, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Latent semantic analysis

Thanks! That's an excellent way to responsed to a 3PO. Is that a template you used? --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of several I've developed or modified for my 3O work. They're here. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

_{Moved to Talk:Michael_Scofield#Death. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Natalia Brasova

Thank you for your opinion on Natalia Brasova. Pevernagie (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of the Third Opinion Template

_{Moved to User_talk:Dgarq#Misuse_of_3O_Third_Opinion_Template TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Mysdaao has eaten your {{cookie}}! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

--Mysdaao ^talk 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kundalini Syndrome

Hello TransporterMan, First of all, thank you for being a good Wikipedian. This message is in response to your reply as Third Opinion on the Kundalini syndrome article. As you have pointed out, I checked the books (hard copy) and couldn't find a proper reference to the phenomenon of Kundalini syndrome in these books see proof. So all I wanted in a clarification: What happens to an article, if it is provided with wrong citations. I presume, the best that can happen is, it will be tagged with please provide citations. But what happens if there are no citations (for over 3 years)? Should't the article be deleted? Please provide me with your inputs since I am relatively new to the world of a good WIkipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced articles can definitely be deleted, see the 5th and 6th bullet points at WP:DEL#REASON. Deletion of the article can be proposed at WP:AFD, following the instructions set out there. Please note that I am only commenting about the standards and the process; I express no opinion of any kind about how those standards or that process might apply to Kundalini Syndrome or any other specific article or discussion. Please remember to sign all your posts with four tildes: ~~~~. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TRANSPORTERMAN. Thanks for your good work. Could you also take a look at the page for Kundalini Yoga, which at the bottom [[2]] also uses many of these same sources (copy-pasted?) as from the Kundalini syndrome page -- sources which are unreferenced. Therefore, can these sections which related entirely to stuff from the Kundalini syndrome page be legitimately deleted? Additionally, these un-cited cross references raise confusion and give the implication that Kundalini yoga and Kundalini syndrome are somehow directly related, even if a more thorough read will inform that they are only associated directly by name.--Fatehji (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Third Opinion (i.e. this one) was in fact given in reference to Talk:Kundalini_yoga not Kundalini. However: Because of paragraph #3 of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian it would be inappropriate for me to issue an additional opinion in Kundalini_Yoga, and because of both that opinion and certain subsequent dealings I had with one of the editors involved in that dispute, it would also be inappropriate under paragraph #2.b. of those standards. Let me suggest that you re-list this new dispute at WP:3O for some other Third Opinion Wikipedian to address or perhaps adopt some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou

Thanks for your 3O on Talk:The True Furqan. --SJK (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting request for third party opinion

^{Moved to Talk:Orpheus#Thracian_origin TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

about your removal of a request for 3rd Opinion for reasons : edit war , incivility

^{Moved to Talk:Literary_sources_for_the_origin_of_the_Romanians#Third_Opinion_Request — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Best message to a new user I've seen, ever [[3]] Gerard ^PFAW 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<Blush> Thank you, very much, indeed. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3O

Hey. Just to let you know, an edit you made came up at the 3O talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd opinion

It looks like you volunteer a good bit of your time to keep the third opinion option maintained for all of us Wikipedians. I don't know you, but I do appreciate your efforts. If I investigated more about your history, I suspect you would more-than-deserving of a barnstar or three. For now, I offer my simple nod of appreciation. Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for offering your third opinion on Talk:Aqua (band)#Danish-Norwegian or just Danish?. I'm hoping that the dispute is now closer to being resolved. Heaika (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on Third opinion

		The Third Opinion Award
		For your many contributions to the Third opinion process. Thank you! — RegentsPark (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My 3O request

Hi there - you seem to have deleted my 3O request. My dispute with another editor remains. Please could you revert your change and/or explain why you deleted it? I may have missed something. Many thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note on the article talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks, all understood now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayala Sudra Edit wars

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/_Nayar-content_dispute-3O_and_consensus_failed

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Reverting_vandalism_by_Sanam001 --Sanam001 (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Third Opinion

Thanks! It is certainly something I'll get into, and a really good idea... not that somebody didn't revert against my third opinion as soon as they saw it :/ SmokingNewton (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You're very welcome. Don't worry about what disputants do with your opinions. Just offer them, let them know what they can do next, then fade into the sunset with a wave of your hat and a hardy, "Hi, ho, Silver, away!". If you've given a carefully–considered neutral opinion, you can take full satisfaction in knowing that you've done your best for them. Will look forward to seeing you around. All the best, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenilworth railway station

You have removed the {{geodata-check}} template from the Talk:Kenilworth railway station article but nothing appears to have been done to resolve the problem that was identified of Google showing the placement for this article in the incorrect place. Can you indicate what has been done to resolve the problem? Thanks. Keith D (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the coordinates appear to be correct. I don't think that the template is going to get the correction that you need, however, since all it does is flag the need for corrected coordinates. If you want to put it back up, please feel free to do so (just remove the "tlc|" from the template in the talk page; I won't revert it) but I think that you're going to have to go somewhere else before you get a real answer. The best I can tell you is that I've noted a similar problem with the Google Earth (not Maps) links given in GeoHack for some sites in the UK in which the "Open" link will take you to the wrong place but the "w/ Meta Data" link will take you to the right place. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that there's a bug in the GeoHack tool, but I suppose that it could be in the Google software instead. If you figure it out, I'd appreciate a head's up. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC) PS: And you're the second Yorkshireman that I've encountered today, see the last post above. Never met one, then met two in one day, who would have thought it? TS[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to provide a 3rd opinion on the Prekmurian/Prekmurje issue. Doremo (talk) 07:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TransporterMan! I be preparing presentate a petition to the SIL international, due to the registration of the prekmurian. Support the petition Marc L. Greenberg and Marko Jesenšek. Greenberg, that use the Prekmurje dialect name also take the Prekmurian. Please give me a hearing! Doremo force to the Prekmurje language name, but neither the Prekmurje, neither the Prekmurian not yet official. The all internet be full of the name prekmurian, as few hundred image, documents wear this name (see the commons!), and the Prekmurians also support the prekmurian language, prekmurian dialect names. Us have the right to chip on, what is the name of ours language. Doncsecz^talk 07:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification and advice regarding the 3rd-opinion procedure. Doremo (talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie

You didn't need to do that, but I haven't eaten yet today so it's particularly appreciated! --~T P W 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Premature involvement

I am concerned that you have provided a 3O opinion for the article Edge Church before any further debate was held between myself and user:Luna Santin. Before making a 3O request the issue should have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. Since this issue had not come to a standstill your involvement was premature and may not have been helpful. Ozdaren (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prostitution in Rhode Island

Thanks for adding to the talk page discussion on Prostitution in Rhode Island. You Can't Clap with One Hand (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Chiropractic Third Opinion

In your third opinion response, you mentioned a study by Wolf a few times. You were referring to the study by Hawk, correct? DigitalC (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blush.png See self-whack on article page. Thanks, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, and your clarification/correction regarding Hawk/Wolf. I have posted another comment which you might be able to comment on, to provide clarity regarding WP:OR. Thanks again. DigitalC (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Victory Parade

I'm coming to you first because I was impressed with your objective 3O on the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron, and your close attention to the Wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Please could you take a look at recent edits at London Victory Parade, which have resulted in section blanking. As you'll see on User:Varsovian's Talk page I have the feeling there is a more general issue at stake, and have requested friendly administrator analysis of an apparent long term trend. Please take a look at that. Still, in my experience, you'll be the best person to deal with a 3O on this short term case of the London Victory Parade. Many thanks, Chumchum7 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I can't help. See my more detailed response at Talk:London_Victory_Parade_of_1946#3O. Thanks for asking, however. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oldcsd

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at fuhghettaboutit's talk page.

Template:Z1

LGBT Rights

Hello, I hope I am expressing this in the correct venue. Thank you for (i think) defending the article Canvass for a Cause. I am a gay rights activist in San Diego, and the group means a lot to me. I wrote the article because the group is very important to people like me that struggle on a daily basis to be accepted for basic rights and acceptance. I understand I am fairly new to Wikipedia, only having authored a half dozen articles, but I am very committed to the work so far. I appreciate your opinion in the speedy deletion case, and would like you ask you advice as to the topic. IF you have any advice as to how I can improve the article, and prevent future attacks please send me a message. I am always looking for ways to improve. Again thank you for your work, Ciao, -Tres Xyxyboy (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shachne Zohn

Perhaps you would like to reiterate your comments from Talk:Shachne Zohn at the page's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shachne_Zohn. --רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Schumann NPOV Issue Recommendation

Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your input. Based on it, I have made a proposal, which is on the discussion page of the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks.Bfiene (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting of Bfiene's Proposed Changes for Erich Schumann Page

Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your prompt attention. I have revised the workspace page you posted for my convenience. I made the one sentence change in the introductory paragraph and replaced the Post WW II section to reflect my changes, which are this section's first paragraph. Many thanks. Let me know.Bfiene (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]