User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TransporterMan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Johann Sebastian Bach

Thank you. In particular, I thought that I had only one choice, which is what I did. One of the questions that was raised by one editor was whether the RFC was still open. It was. It was also argued that it was No Consensus. There was No Consensus. So the only way that I saw forward was to close it as a non-administrative closure, and most RFCs are closed by non-administrators. (As you know, there are a few types of closures, such as AFDs, that should be by administrators, at least if the consensus is Delete, because only an administrator can delete.) However, since one of the questions was whether there was an open RFC, and I had closed the RFC, I thought it best to acknowledge that I was marginally involved. Unfortunately, it looks as though this is a case where DRN may not work because of stubborn editors. (I hope that it does.) Thank you for your comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks more like DRN will not work, because one editor wants to use an RFC, and an RFC trumps DRN. I think that this dispute is likely to go to ANEW or ANI. We just have to do what we can do. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, I said a bit more and more clearly, here. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks even more like this will wind up as a conduct issue. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the case TM, it is definitely becoming a conduct issue (mainly what I was trying to avoid, ah well). I was probably being a bit clingy but definitely needed shutting down. Again, thanks for both the close and your continued hard work (you as well Robert), and cheers to you both, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC) PS I found a 'newer' discussion for the Paul Singer case but it is almost three weeks old at the last post.

TransporterMan shut down the Paul Singer case also. I counted six or seven weeks, rather than three. It doesn't seem to be a conduct issue, but is very stale. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Caveats were placed but I pointed to the NPOV/N discussion here where the last comment was on 1 January 2016 (UTC) by an IP user. That seems to have been the last place to have discussed the issue. TM has removed the close-caveat of 'stale discussion' ("barely"), will likely remove 'no notification' and then the dispute just needs a Moderator. I, personally, would not accept this dispute since I have interacted with at least two (if not three) of it's members in disputes, and at least two in recent months. However, the interactions were mixed bags and I don't think I would be biased one way or the other (to a significant enough degree) ... but we never know our own minds, do we? So I'll follow your model for these, Robert McClenon. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

An attribution question

Hi TransporterMan. I recently copied some material from an article to its own talk page. I assumed that that is a special case that does not require the attribution usually required (for copyright purposes) in the edit summary when copying from one Wikipedia page to another. Please let me know if my assumption was correct; if it wasn't, I'll go back and provide the attribution. Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as it was clear where it came from (and I can't imagine that it wasn't, considering the context), I strongly suspect that it was fine and noncontroversial. Frankly, I don't think that there are any specific rules on this. COPYWITHIN, which is the internal copying guideline, doesn't really address it except perhaps by the very most general principles and mostly focuses on public-facing copying of various sorts. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:03, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I was fairly sure that what I did was OK, but I just wanted to check with someone more experienced and knowledgeable just to be on the safe side. Your help and advice are always appreciated.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For your closing comments @DRN. Appreciated, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on Muhammad

Here is the RFC to which I was originally referring, which has expired but has not been closed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#What_should_be_included_for_information_regarding_Aishas.27_marriage_to_Muhammad_on_the_Muhammad_article.3F

However, there is also another RFC that is still open:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad#RFC_for_opening_sentence_in_the_lede

    Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, I appreciate it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that neither of the RFCs has to do with the subject for which the mediation has been requested. The problem for mediation, as you noted, is primarily the conditional acceptances. I will also note that if there are conduct issues, they should probably be taken to arbitration enforcement rather than to WP:ANI. I will also note that at least one of the editors in the mediation has been given a three-day block for edit-warring, but can presumably participate in mediation when they come off block. (That is just evidence that there are conduct issues.) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that one of the parties to the Request for Mediation on Muhammad has also filed a Request for Arbitration. The Request for Arbitration asks to have a 30 days minimum to permit editing. The responses at the ArbCom are that this can be decided by the ArbCom without a new motion or case by the arbitrators. This might warrant either closing the mediation request or waiting to see what the arbitrators do. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, for the head's up. We'll take it into consideration. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Help/Advice

I’m hoping that you might be willing to offer suggestions/advice with regard to a content dispute/editor conduct. I am new to Wikipedia – but not new to the arena being discussed – and the editor involved is one of some standing with Wikipedia – and either I don’t have the Wikipedia knowledge as this time to move forward or the editor is just plain unwilling. That is why I reached out to you – as you too have a very high standing – and if I have any basis at all to move forward toward a positive resolution with this editor I’m hoping for the potential advice of someone who is just as experienced as he. I don’t know if I wish to make a Dispute Resolution Request as this time for two reasons – being new I’m not sure if I have a basis for that and I’m also somewhat intimidated by this editor. My hope that I might be able to get to the point with this editor whereby we can try and discuss and possibly reach some type of compromise – as Wikipedia suggests – but this editor has no desire to do this – after being asked several times. It did get heated on the article talk page – so, as Wikipedia suggests, I let some time elapse and then reached out to him on his user talk page – as also suggested by Wikipedia. He has been rude and uncivil to me – but I can handle that – but the remarks that he has made, and his ridicule of the person that is the subject of the article is most disconcerting. I fully understand that I am new to Wikipedia and that I may have made some mistakes – but I’m hoping to learn as much and as fast as I can – as I hope to contribute in an arena that I have some knowledge in. But I had no idea, that when choosing a first place to start – that it would evolve the way that it has – so far – and my hope is to try and move forward in a positive with regard to this first effort. Would you please be willing to perhaps take a look at the issue and offer any and all suggestions/advice that you feel might be helpful? I understand that I may be dead wrong in my position – or in parts of my position – but I don’t think I’m entirely wrong -and feel that his position may not be 100% correct either. I would be very grateful for any and all help that you may be willing to offer – and many thanks in advance for your time and consideration.Indyrolexalms (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about this dispute followed by this discussion on The Bushranger's talk page, typified by this edit. The unfortunate fact is that it is very difficult for a new editor to break into Wikipedia because the rules and customs here seem to be (and are, in fact, to some considerable extent) complex. One thing that often happens is that the newcomer has a conflict with an experienced user and seeks help simply because they don't know whether the reasoning being used by the experienced editor is a bluff or is true. (A problem compounded by the fact that experienced editors — pointing no fingers here, just speaking in general — weary of explaining things over and over again and sometimes don't explain their reasons very well to newcomers.) The other thing that happens is that until a newcomer learns the rules that they have nothing to rely on in arguments except a priori arguments attempting to judge the general quality and suitability of sources, arguments, and material. Those kinds of arguments generally carry very little weight here since we have very well-defined rules about how to judge them. With that introduction, a couple of particular points:

It appears to me that the Criticism section as currently written is appropriate. It's always a fine line on criticisms. If someone wanted to include something about Duno that she made bad grades in school, it probably wouldn't be appropriate. But this is criticism which goes to the main thing that she does and which is part of her main claim to fame. The sources which support it are clearly reliable and in terms of length it's a minor part of a long article, which is to say that the weight of the criticism section is appropriate in light of overall article length. If she had not been parked or put on probation, that is if the criticism had been made up only of criticism by other drivers or their fans, then the case for mentioning it here would have been weaker but it might have still passed muster if it appeared in enough independent reliable sources because that's how, in general, we weigh the relative importance of material.
The fastest way to get a grip on all of this is to read several policies, top to bottom, word for word: Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, if you're going to be creating articles Notability (along with any subtypes of that rule that apply to your subject matter), and if you're going to be writing or editing articles about living or recently-deceased people Biographies of Living Persons. What Wikipedia is Not and Arguments to Avoid in Deletion Discussions (which mostly also applies to discussions other than just deletion) are also very useful.
It's paradoxical, but the best way to get started here is to edit about things which you have only a minor interest in. Trying to write about things that you're an expert in or very interested in causes you to react "just because I said so" when challenged rather than appealing to the wiki-principles which are of first importance. Though I've practiced law for over 35 years I almost never edit about legal matters here because almost every time I do I stick my foot in my mouth.
I've scanned though the discussion on the talk pages and I'm just not seeing your opponent being particularly rude or uncivil or, for that matter, being particularly ridiculing of Duno, at least not beyond what's said in the reliable sources. (And I'm not a buddy of Bushranger. I don't recall having ever interacted with him — which isn't to say that I haven't, only that if we have it didn't make a substantial impression of me pro or con.) I don't say this to discourage you, but you need to know it: You have to have a very thick skin to edit here. If you're disturbed by what's happened so far in this discussion, it has been by most wiki-experience a very calm and straightforward discussion and it is, in any event, a candle flame compared to the nuclear firestorms which are standard in many areas of dispute. Indeed, one of the main things that we do in dispute resolution is to provide a mostly-drama-free zone by not allowing incivility to the greatest extent than we can. The single best piece of advice I can give on this point is to ignore incivility. Don't respond to it, don't comment about it, just ignore it; if that's all your opponent is willing to do and won't get down to talking about content, then speak to an administrator.

I hope that what I've said here will not dissuade you from continuing to edit Wikipedia. We really appreciate your help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - Talkpage Stalker of TransporterMan - @TransporterMan and Indyrolexalms: I found a few lovely little compendiums of the policies, guidelines and noticeboards that are commonly used (and not-so-commonly-used) on Wikipedia by fanatical editors that love going "My reasoning is fully detailed by reading [[WP:[Policy in question] ]]". You do kind of get used to the shorthand of policies (though I've recently been caught out with a few shortcuts changing around), especially the "big policies" that TM mentioned above. Never be afraid to ask for a "third opinion" either officially or unofficially (as you have done above) or to ask at a noticeboard/Editor Assistance/the TeaHouse.
But now for the aforementioned lists;

Wikipedia:List of policies - with a little summary of the area covered by the policy, though editors construe some policies broadly (such as WP:MEDRS, and the other "big policies")
Wikipedia:List of guidelines - same deal but be warned, don't attempt to overrule a policy with a guideline without very, very, very good reasoning or you will be metaphorically 'shot down'. In large discussion, this is almost an enforced law but in small discussion between users it is more possible (based on personal experience) to bend a few policies with very good reasoning.
Wikipedia:Noticeboards - little summaries; you won't need most of these just yet, if ever.

Hope this helps! Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll give you both one of the dirty little secrets of being a lawyer: It's not so much knowing the law, but knowing how and where to find the law. No one can remember all the details of everything all the time. You first become familiar with a subject (contract law, for example), remember the terms (the "express negligence rule") and the broad topics (indemnification), and then and by doing so remember where it was (Texas Transaction Guide, among other sources for Texas law) so that you can go back and refresh your mind on the small details or nuances when and as you need to do so. When its something you work with all the time, you remember more and only refer back when you get into unusual situations; when it's something you do less or not at all, you may have to refresh your memory from the very beginning. Remembering and dealing with the rules here works much the same. However, if your memory fails you and you find out that you were wrong, the best defense against a bad rep is this: by far be right most of the time, never be proven wrong because you were bluffing but only because you made a good faith mistake, and when you are proven wrong say these exact words, "You're right and I'm wrong. I made a mistake." And, if you caused someone inconvenience in proving that you were wrong, sincerely apologize and if you were a real idiot (and maybe even if you weren't) consider giving yourself a {{whack}}. (Heck, I've done it enough that I've even created a template for it {{Subst:User:TransporterMan/Templates/Selfwhack}} which renders to

self-whack!. Feel free to use it, but please "Subst:" it if you do.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As a belated-due-to-Real-Life™ footnote, thanks for looking into this and handling it with much more grace than I certainly could have - I'm sometimes bad at long explanations, and while I certainly apologise to Indy if I came across as rude or uncivil, I admit I can get a bit short sometimes when an editor seems to me to be entrenched in a point of view that doesn't seem to agree with policy. Anyway, to the other point I wanted to make: I certainly don't ridicule Duno, and I hold her no ill will - heck, I'm a bit of a fan of hers (and I'll freely admit my status as a red-blooded American male does not dissuade that). That said, though, what's notable is notable, and unfortunatly - as her rather-more-shiny sports car racing career is, in the American sports pantheon, somewhere on the level of Major League Lacrosse at best - that's what she's largely remembered for in the eye of the sporting public, which is a shame, but it is what it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Dark Web

I see that a participant collapsed their own post. I agree with you that that wasn't productive, and I see that you uncollapsed it, for which I thank you. However, they then added more to it, and collapsed it again. I have left it collapsed with the notation that it is to long, didn't read, and asked them to be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

You give me too much credit. All I did was to add a missing {{cob}} tag, for no reason other than the absence of that tag had included the rest of the page in the collapsed section, including the cases following that case on the page. It was pure housekeeping, with no judgment — or for that matter, examination — of whether or why the section was collapsed. But, hey, thanks for imputing that good judgment to my actions.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reopen WP:DRN case on ResellerRatings

A case I started on WP:DRN was closed due to no responses. I was in the hospital and had no access to Wikipedia. Do I have to go through the entire process again, or is there some way to have the existing closed case reopened? It was regarding ResellerRatings. ZeroShadows (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it would have to be refiled not reopened, but since it was closed because no one responded, there's probably no point in doing so. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and since the parties other than you also chose not to respond the case would almost certainly have been closed even if you had responded. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Does DRN require a user to have a named account?

There is a user who edits anonymously that thinks he/she must have a named user account in order to participate in the DRN process (as a requester for help). Is that correct or are they mistaken? As far as I can tell there is nothing written in WP policies or guidelines, and no technical reason why DRN should not be open to anonymous users but I figured I would ask the experts here like yourself. Thanks Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

See this very recent discussion, where I expressed my opinion on that exact point: Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#On_requesting_DR_with_a_different_IP_address. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A question about the "User Wikipedian for" template

Hi TransporterMan. Is it permissible to subst the "User Wikipedian for" template? The purpose would be to change the colors to something other than the normal (purple) color. Thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. What I mean is substing and re-editing the template only on my own user page; not in any way that would affect the template as used by others.
Richard27182 (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean {{User Wikipedian for}}. There's no prohibition on subst'ing it, but whether it will work afterwards requires more coding knowledge than I possess, though I'm fairly certain that it will. As I'm sure you're aware, all subst'ing does is copy the code of the template into your page rather than just linking to it at the template page. If you're concerned about internal-copying copyright rules, I wouldn't worry about it as I've never seen those rules applied to templates, but if you're nervous about it you can always put an attribution in the code using a HTML comment something like this:  But I wouldn't bother if it were me. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan. As always your help is very much appreciated. Yes, considerations such as internal-copying copyright rules and the like are some of the things I had been concerned about. Since I wrote my previous message I have found out that, at least for the specific thing I want to do with that particular template, there is a way to do it simply by adding some extra parameters when using the template without any need to subst and edit; so I'll probably do it that way. But it's nice to know that, in those cases where substing and editing the template wikicode would be necessary, it would be OK to do. Thanks again.
Richard27182 (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

nbsp

In this diff[1] I see random   added at two points. I was curious if it was deliberate for some reason, and if not, whether you had any idea what might have caused it? My first thought was maybe a VisualEditor bug, but the edit isn't tagged as Visual. Alsee (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, but I think that it may be a part of the diff creation process, not part of the original text. Try asking at HELPDESK. Those folks know about that kind of thing. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

FYI on someone else's request for WP:3O, not mine

[2] Seems like this should be in Fraser's talk page, not mine. Should I remove your notice? Yakushima (talk) 08:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Fraser's edit to [[WP:3O]: [3] Yakushima (talk) 08:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It was on your page because that was the location listed in the request. "Your" is used in the plural sense in my notice. At 3O we do not consider who filed the request, but thank you for the note. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't consider who filed the request, you nevertheless addressed me as the filer. In cases of mistaken identity, I think the appropriate response is "Sorry for the error," not "thank you." Yakushima (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you did not like my response. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Advice to DRN Filer When Other Editor Will Not Discuss

I had to decline a Third Opinion because it was an issue between two unregistered editors, but the non-filing party did not discuss, merely edited. I said that if I were to offer an opinion, it would be a Second Opinion. The filing unregistered editor then filed at DRN, where I also had to decline the case due to lack of discussion. Can you please provide any advice to the filing unregistered editor as to what to do next? (I saw a slightly different case once where a registered editor would add a template to an article, and an unregistered editor would repeatedly revert without discussion. In that case, semi-protection was in order. In this case, semi-protection is not the answer.) The only advice that I had was either to use an RFC or to ask for input from a WikiProject. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no entirely satisfactory answer. I'd probably recommend that the filing IP editor create an account and then follow DISCFAIL, but that's problematical if the other editor's IP address changes and I have some doubt that the filing editor may be able to get semi-protection as a newly-minted account. If you're feeling particularly charitable, you yourself could enter the fray as just a regular editor rather than wearing your DR hat and support whichever editor (if either) is in the right. That's somewhat iffy after you have taken actions on their DR filings, however, because doing so makes it look like you took those actions from a biased position, so it would have been better to do it right off the starting block rather than take the DR action. At the end of the day, however, I think my main advice would be not to worry about it too much: There is no hurry and time wounds all heels. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disappointed in rush to judgement about mediation

jytDog has been hounding me on my talk page, and I'm very disappointed in the Wikipedia system (and you in particular) for failing to act to protect its newcomers. I have notated many of the issues on my talk page, until I got exhausted from the sheer number of them. Exonerated torturee (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Exonerated torturee, the Mediation Committee does not handle or discuss matters concerning user conduct. For user conduct issues consider the processes described here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Bonneville Speedway

So regardless of any other arguements, regardless of justification, it's my fault because a request for a source is sacrosant. I can understand that. Must say that had not occurred to me and I should have known better. Thank you for the fast response. --Falcadore (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:16, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Cryonics

You are right in that this would be a waste of time -the major issue is WP:IDHT on the part of a single-purpose account with an obvious agenda. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi TM, as much as I'd like to still be involved with this I just haven't the time to commit (and haven't for last few years if I'm honest) to doing a thorough enough job. I hope to come back some time and pick it back up again and wish you the best of luck as coordinator. Cabe 6403^{(Talk•Sign)} 17:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Cabe, for the update. We'd welcome you back whenever you get the chance. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm really sorry I haven't been more active at DRN of (long-term) late. I have a great time collaborating with you in general, and I'm certainly happy to weigh in at the Talk page when I think I have something useful to contribute, but I wouldn't feel right about taking a case when I couldn't guarantee I'd be able to keep an eye on it. I'm hopeful that my free time is clearing up to a point where I'll be able to more actively engage, so I'm going to refrain from de-listing myself for the time-being, but we'll have to wait and see. I look forward to continuing interaction with you either way! DonIago (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do is fine with me, Don. Feel free to add yourself to the roll call; I know you'll be back when you can. Or let me know and I'll do it. And, of course, I always enjoy working with you as well. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks TM! DonIago (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Editing the Amon Carter Museum main article

Hello. Working on the ACMAA main article. Two questions. How can I edit a reference created in ProveIt? I made a boo boo. Second, how can I move section (header and all) to a different place in the article? I want to move the HISTORY section to a new spot. Thanks so much. Papernpencils2015 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit the section or entire article in which the reference appears and either delete the entire reference (from and including both the beginning <ref> code and the closing </ref> code) and redo it or just edit the code itself to make the correction that you want and preview it to make sure it didn't mess something up (unlikely). As for moving the section, edit the entire article and just cut and paste that section (in Windows, highlight it in the edit window and then Ctrl-X to cut it, move your cursor to the beginning of the place where you want to put it and Ctrl-V); once it's pasted in, check to make sure that the heading lines at the beginning of the section and the following heading still both appear on a line by themselves and don't have more than one blank line before or after them. Let me know if I can help further. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent adverse determination (steel cut oats)

I was combing through your user page & I noticed that you were a corporate attorney. As an attorney, you should be aware of the fact that a layman may not understand the various outlets of alternative dispute resolution that a user could avail themselves of. For example in Steel-cut oats2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Steel-cut_oats_2) instead of mentioning what my options are and linking to the page: ...(e.g. dispute resolution noticeboard, third opinion, request for comment, or additional talk page discussion)..., maybe you should take time out of day to explain the significance of each forum. One possible way would be put in bullet form a sentence or two the purpose of the forum (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Resolving content disputes with outside help. A person should not have to scramble to each page to figure out what it means, in fact it might overwhelming to a first-time user of ADR . If you really believe in kindness, keep that in mind for the next user who crosses your path. MrX2077 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Frederick S. Jaffe at WP:DRN

Just a heads up the article does fall under Discretionary Sanctions broadly construed for the topic of abortion. I did put a note the Dispute for who ever does open it for discussion and advised the editors of the discretionary sanctions. --Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Cooper Mediation Rejection

What would you suggest now? As it's not simply a content matter, but clearly two individuals wilfully denying fact, and compromising article improvement, can I take it to Arbitration? Engleham (talk) 20:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

See the dispute resolution policy for both content and conduct options. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC) @Engleham: One more word not well covered on the DR page: Since there was a RFC on this question, you also need to see the closure challenge advice. I do not intend to imply, however, that there was or was not anything wrong with that close, however, I'm only providing you with information about procedure. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Rv

Thanks for starting a conversation on the talk page. I wonder, though, whether you think this is worse than saying nothing at all about that subject on the page. If it's a step (however small) in the right direction, then perhaps it'd be better to leave it there and improve it, instead of removing it completely. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

It's one of those things where the glass might be seen as half-empty or half-full, but I think that the repetition of the "should" out of context weakens BURDEN rather than clarifies it. Frankly, I've long felt that the Editing policy has very little in it that is an actual guideline or policy and ought to be demoted to a guideline or, better, an information page, but I'd just as soon not stir that preservationist/deletionist hornet nest. (And it's been tried a couple of times and failed, more's the pity.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Question About Challenge to Third Opinion

At your convenience, since you are on travel, but sometime soon, could you please look at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon#Landmark_Media_Enterprises

My real question is whether my understanding of Third Opinion as a lightweight process means that I was acting reasonably in providing the brief Third Opinion that I did, or whether the other editor is right in criticizing me for offering a "drive-by" Third Opinion. It seems to me, but I may be off the mark, that the other editor is trying to use Third Opinion as something semi-binding (and even DRN isn't binding). Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Er, isn't 3O basically supposed to be a "drive-by" opinion? DonIago (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've commented at Robert's user talk page. Best Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DRN problem

Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request#Unable_to_create_request. Can you take a look? Thanks! Felsic2 (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who doesn't know anything

Regarding the request for mediation for SIG MCX, you're right: there are too many parties and with a minimum of five "accept" votes needed, I can tell you right now that's probably a threshold too high. If I were to recommend striking editors who contributed very minimally (especially User:Therubicon, who hasn't contributed in a month but also User talk:Faceless Enemy, who had one substantial comment but nothing else and User:DHeyward, who hasn't discussed anything relevant in a month), what would happen? Would you strike them? Would User:Felsic2 have to? Etc.? RunnyAmiga (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to copy this to the mediation page's talk page and respond to it there. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Dispute definition

@TransporterMan, your message was brief: can you explain further? Is there a better page for dispute "dispute definition" questions? You haven't answered on my Talk Page; have you answered on someone else's Talk Page? Santamoly (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

See the "user conduct" section at DRR. — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Advice

In your capacity as a wise and experienced editor, what do you recommend I do at Talk:SIG MCX‎, etc, to discuss topics without them becoming so personal? Felsic2 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

At this point, it would be inappropriate for me to engage with any individual party to the mediation case while the case is still pending. If the case is rejected, as seems likely at this point, I'll give you my thoughts on that point. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

There's no perfect way to do it, but the best way is to resolutely not engage: When personalities or incivility are employed, have a thick skin and simply refuse to respond to those things and continue to only address the content. If the incivility continues and the others will not engage on the content issues, then take the matter to an administrator or to ANI remembering that there is always the possibility of BOOMERANG. You might also be able to use a version of the recommendations at DISCFAIL in that situation before going to an administrator or ANI, since failing to discuss the content issues and only being willing to engage in discussions of personality or incivility is a version of not being willing to discuss at all. Let me end by saying that by saying this I am not implying that anyone involved in your dispute has been engaged in any of those things; I've not looked and have no opinion on that point, I'm just answering your question in the abstract. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I appreciate those suggestions, though none of them provide a clear path. I don't understand how Wikipedia doesn't allow content disputes to be settled in any systematic way. The content policies seem clear enough, but if editors choose to disregard them there's no way of correcting that. DISCFAIL seems very convoluted and destined to fail. Two efforts at dispute resolution have been rejected, with personal attacks or comments. And here you, a senior dispute resolution officer, seem to say that if I complain there's a good chance I'll be the one who gets punished. This is very discouraging. Felsic2 (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

"Possibility" does not equal "good chance". Prior to seeking conduct enforcement against others, only you can evaluate whether your conduct has been such that a BOOMERANG may occur, I was only alerting you to that possibility so that you could make that assessment before going in rather than having it blindside you if that issue is applicable. As for the settlement of disputes, Wikipedia doesn't allow content disputes to be adjudicated, because to do so flies in the face of the most basic principles on how Wikipedia works, through collaboration and consensus, and with the understanding that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result under that system. Various forms of a content arbitration process have been proposed through the years (including one by me), but even those which diligently seek input from the entire community before making a decision have failed — and I've come around to think properly so — to gain approval from the community because in all of those proposals some committee or other small group of editors will eventually decide what content can and cannot be in the encyclopedia, and that's not what Wikipedia is about. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand some of that. I don't get why editors are allowed to flout civility rules in the process. It's one thing to be shouted down. It's another thing to be personally insulted over and over. "Collaboration" isn't really possible when editors ignore the content discussion and simply cast aspersions on their opponents. It's a pity that some arguments are won that way, rather than by the thoughtful discussion of rules and principles. I know there's nothing you can do about it. Thanks for doing what you can. Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Question

I'm good to go at the DR/N, right? I'm on the list above implementation, or should I be on the one below? ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and you're on the official, substantially reduced, list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Volunteering#List_of_the_DRN_volunteers. Thanks for continuing to volunteer to help! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a question

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.25.29.10 (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Ask away. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Removing the warning from August 2016?

I forgot the rule: Are we allow to remove the warning from the talk page by ourselves if the issue is considered resolve? George Leung (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You are always free to remove that kind of warning, resolved or not (as Anmccaff did as soon as it arrived). Removing it is, however, acknowledgement that you have received and read it. There are some kinds of warnings and notices which cannot be removed, but that's not one of them. Kudos to you and Anmccaff for working out your issues. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

WIR position at Amon Carter Museum of American Art

Hey TransporterMan, I wanted to reach out to you and offer any support or help you need while you are in the WIR position at the Amon Carter Museum of American Art. As GLAM-Wiki strategist at the Wikimedia Foundation, I would be happy to connect you with other Wikimedians who have considerable experience working on different parts of GLAM-Wiki outreach and partnerships. I would also, highly encourage you to makes sure to present about your work and attend: WikiConference North America this year. Astinson (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I very much appreciate that and need the help... However, due to RW family health issues I'm having to take the month of September and probably a good sized chunk of October off. I'll probably give you a shout, however, once I gear back up on my return. Many thanks and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to know! I will look forward to hearing from you. I hope the family's health turns around. Let me know when if I can help (also User:Sadads, so feel free to reach out in a volunteer capacity). Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Geography

Greetings! There appears to be a bit of a problem with the lede geographical location on Eritrea. One user is making contentious edits under the pretext that the RFC question is over. However, it has not yet expired much less been formally closed and the consensus assessed per WP:RFCEND. Could you please supervise the situation? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I do not mediate disputes at conduct article talk pages as it is not usually productive and the role of the mediator vs the disputants is not sufficiently clear. If, on the other hand, you're seeking an administrator to deal with conduct matters, I'm not an administrator. Your best path at this point would probably be to request a consensus evaluation at the administrator's noticeboard; I realize that the RFC isn't ended, but if individuals are claiming a clear consensus you can request an evaluation of that claim and also request administrator help there but — and I'm not implying anything by this, just making sure you know — beware the BOOMERANG. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

War of 1812 Mediation

Thanks very much for your help with the request for the War of 1812 mediation. IMHO, while it's a detailed page, the issue is that the page is dominated by mostly US Wikipedia editors who have one particular view of the result of the War of 1812. If their view is challenged, it's very hard to change that aspect of the page. So I guess they would be unlikely to agree to a mediation, while their view prevails (and to be honest, the mediation would have been long, and some of them were involved in a previous one, so they understandably may not have had the time). The War of 1812 is a contentious issue, as the view of who won breaks down on national lines, and I personally think that a lot of national feeling is involved in opinions of whether Britain won the war or the United states won, or whether there was a draw. In any case, It's being looked at as a bias issue currently, which is probably the more appropriate place considering the mediation was never likely to get started. Anyways, good on you for your work on Wikipedia....your a brave editor taking on mediations! Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Oops.

I used the link to "Email this user". Guess I made another mistake. My apologies. Bubbecraft (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the email, but I'm afraid that like Murph9000 and Robert McClenon at the Teahouse, I'm afraid that your question is too general and open-ended for me to answer. I defer to Murph's and Robert's comments at the Teahouse. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:TransporterMan and User:Murph9000 have been kinder about this question than I have been, and, on looking into what it really was, unfortunately, I do not regret my deeply cynical comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback and found it very helpful. Thank you, also User:Robert McClenon. Your cynicism was appreciated and I apologize for my lack of understanding the WP world better. Bubbecraft (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:Please consider reactivation at MedCom

Boy, you must be desperate for help if you're asking me to come back.

I write that for a few reasons. First, it's been an awful long time since I was a member of the MedCom -- most of the currently active contributors hadn't even heard of Wikipedia when I quit. Second, I quit because I never felt I was a very effective mediator; it's just not something I was comfortable doing, nor was I that good with handling people. I figure you should have no trouble attracting people who can do a better job than I did.

But more important is the fact I just don't have the time. After work & family (& two daughters under 10 years of age) I have maybe an hour a night available to devote to Wikipedia, less on weekends, & I'd like to devote as much of that to improving content as possible. So I have to say no. But thanks for the message. -- llywrch (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the reply and I certainly understand the RW demands on your time. If things free up, give us another try: I bet you're not nearly as bad as you think you are. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I also read your call for help and I appreciate the invitation. Wow, MedCom was a LONG time ago for me ! (2003 ?!?) I do not know if I was effective or not (not convinced I was)... but I remember this being a huge drainer of energy and time. Both being issues to me at the moment. So i really apology, but I will decline. Sorry. Anthere (talk)

As I said, above, thanks for the reply and I very much understand. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Back

After taking a long time away (and realizing that I was personalizing certain disputes) I'm back somewhat. Hasteur (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Hope you'll pick up again as the DRN bot op. Fortunately, nothing went severely wrong while you were away so we didn't have to find a replacement. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Expulsion of Cham Albanians page

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians#Start of mediation (I hope). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Mediation comitee

In a meditation case is an outside person allowed to comment? On the article page itself they were but does that hold true for talk page? I was the DRN volunteer (actually i took over after the previous volunteer was busy), am I allowed to add comments that may be helpful for the case? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

You may become a party to the case, of course, since any Wikipedian may do that. But since you acted as a neutral party at DRN, it would probably be best if you did not participate in the mediation since to do so can call your neutrality at DRN into question, thus damaging your reputation. At most, you might make some clarifying comments at the very beginning of the mediation and say that you're not going to participate further afterwards, but the best course of action is to do nothing at all. Before doing even that much, I would make the offer on the mediation page and seek the consent of the mediator before saying anything substantive. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 22:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

DRN case titles

Hi TransporterMan, I gather that you are the current DRN coordinator.

While opening a recent case, I found the instructions on the form a little confusing. On the second frame, it has a box for entering what I think should be the title of the case but has instructions that say something else:

Please provide a link to the talk page section where discussion has occurred. Note: if a suitable discussion link is not provided, your DRN filing may be automatically closed.

I thought it was odd, but added a link with brackets and all, something like [[Talk:Page#Section]]. The whole thing then became the case title. I thought I might have misread the instructions, but I notice that all other cases are also being created with the same kind of misunderstanding. Can the instructions be changed? I think it would be ideal for them to say:

Please provide the title of the page where the dispute has occurred.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll look into it, but I suspect that the problem is that we don't just want the page title but the section of the talk page where discussion has occurred. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Even if that were the case, what is meant by "link" is not clear. Is it expected to be a URL, or a wikilink? Do we need all those brackets? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a ~~Charlie Brown~~ Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw ^(talk)

Crisis at DRN?

Hello TransporterMan, it looks like the DRN board has come to a grinding halt with no volunteer activity for more than 48 hours. Looking through the edit history, I notice that there was a bit of a storm in another case. I hope it is being sorted out? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It appears to have picked back up since your posting, but I've also just resigned as coordinator. See Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Coordinator_resignation. Robert McClenon is now the most active and experienced volunteer there and you should probably address any concerns to him. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This just cropped up on my watchlist. Hope you're doing OK - feel free to drop me an email. Steven Crossin 23:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Cheerio

Hey bud. I took a look at DRN recently and made some suggestions - opened an RFC titling it "Time to close DRN?", asking if there were ways to improve DRN. I'll share my opinions a little more offline if you want to chat, but frankly, it's clear to me that my opinions or input at DRN is no longer welcome, and as that's really the only thing I've ever done at Wikipedia (MedCom is just not an option), I think that's a wrap for me on Wikipedia. I wish you all the best. Do keep in touch. You've been a good friend to me over the years. Steven Crossin 22:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)