User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookson Group

Why did you attempt to add this AfD to the log in this edit? I can't find any attempt by anyone to nominate the article for deletion. And I don't know why someone would want to nominate Cookson Group for deletion in the first place. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

See my post on the AfD talk page. In short, I tried to add it via Twinkle and Twinkle failed, just leaving that one entry. As to why, the article has existed for 6 years wholly without reliable sources, thus failing WP:CORP. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Getting past the Twinkle problem (I don't use Twinkle myself, so I can't help there), and going to the merits of the article, I would note that WP:LISTED, particularly the second paragraph of the section, tends to suggest that nominating the article for deletion may not be the best plan for dealing with it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm new at AfD'ing by the way. I looked for reliable sources for Cookson Group before nominating it and couldn't find anything other than passing mention of it on finance pages or in finance news. Is there some reason it shouldn't be AfD'ed? — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't note your post before I posted that last one. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is still relevant with your prior comment being struck out, but this Google News Archive search finds over 500 articles (with no price to view them) mentioning this company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Before reading WP:LISTED my thought was that virtually all of those Google hits — which I had reviewed before making the nomination — would be non-significant as passing mentions, as opposed to a full-fledged piece (or part of a piece) about the company; ditto with listings at places like Yahoo finance or Hoovers. I thought this on the basis that any company can go public and, thus, get listed and, thus, end up with those kinds of references even if all it does is sell widgets in Nowheresville. I'm not grinding an axe here and don't have anything at stake but it really seems like there is a far softer standard on this basis for companies than there is for, for example, bands, but if so, so be it. Thanks for the advice. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do we bother?

When things like this can get posted? Be sure to scroll down. And this was the author's revised version of the page after userfying it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion - round up

The dispute between myself and Nutriveg, to me, is about content. It may have degenerated a bit into behaivour. But it really centers on the content of that one particular edit. I would really appreciate a third opinion on whether it is encyclopedic attack the man rather than criticise the contents of his argument.Ttguy (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Copied to and replied at Talk:Roundup_(herbicide)#Third_Opinion — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

template

Hi, thanks for your explicit response here and I still a question, whether Wikipedia discourages a template with red links in majority? I created a template to replace Template:Jiangxi which is almost redundant with Template:County-level divisions of Jiangxi. But my edit was reverted and I was told to create more articles before changing back to my version. Meanwhile, I find it frequent templates with many red links on wiki, such as Template:Driving licences in Africa. Thanks.--Symane TALK 00:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but due to my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian, I must limit my involvement in that article to opining about the issue posted at the Third Opinion project. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just asking whether or not Wikipedia has some rule somewhere to discourage templates with many red links, I don't think it would infringe any objectivity to my understanding. Well, still thanks for your previous response.--Symane TALK 11:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a question in dispute (or at least raised) at the article, I can't get involved as to take a position on that question could be seen as taking sides, depending upon which side of the dispute my answer happens to favor (which might then call the neutrality of my initial third opinion into question and weaken it). You might ask the question at the Content Noticeboard, at the Help Desk, or if you want to characterize it as a dispute, even as a new listing at the Third Opinion project. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, still the same problem. While you informed as the Third Opinion that "there is no compulsorily reason to use the same type of map in all Chinese provinces articles", two users continue insisting on a so-called long-established consensus that the Chinese province format is an established format used for almost all "Chinese provincial divisions" articles. They start to warn me on my talk page and I risk being blocked in confronting this odd and fabricated "consensus" as they seems to have more finesses. So I'd like consulting you once again about what I shall do in this situation. Thanks.--Symane TALK 13:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If a dispute continues, then other forms of dispute resolution should be used rather than edit warring. Let me suggest a request for comments, a request for assistance at WikiProject China, or a submission at the mediation cabal. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for third opinion

I'd like to express my thanks for your recent Third Opinion concerning the Newport Tower. I don't think that your opinion will cause an immediate resolution; but I do believe that it will help to improve the communication atmosphere on that article's talk page. --Other Choices (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 12:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
Message added 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely done

I think your write-up at Talk:Eric Goodyear of Sweden was very well done. I, too, have questioned the 2-and-only-2 editors bit. All the best, and happy editing.- Sinneed 15:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll watchlist this page, please feel free to reply here or my talk page, if and as you choose. :) - Sinneed 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your template, so if you don't mind, I'll steal it for those times when I follow things from 3O... though I'll change it a bit to say "was once", since I don't feel comfortable "taking" 3O's at this time... my style is too abrasive.- Sinneed 15:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Please feel to use or modify it with my compliments. I don't actually use it all that much because I'm so involved with 3O that in general I'll either opine on a listing or not join in at all because I don't understand it or don't have a clue (much less an opinion) on how it should be resolved and/or don't have time to do the policy/guideline/best practice research needed to figure it out. I have the concept, however, built into paragraph 6 of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Let me encourage you to take part at WP:3O. One of the nice things about 3O is that you can just jump in, opine, and ride off into the sunset leaving the — hopefully — grateful townspeople standing behind saying, "Who was that masked man?", without getting caught up in the emotions of the dispute. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It goes against my nature. ;) I had completely forgotten I ever took a 3PO, then looked through the log and found articles that are still on my watch list today. Mimosa pudica... humor there... I knew this plant from childhood and had always wondered what it was. My watchlist has bloated to 500 again. I collect articles. One of my favorite computer-things-to-do (yes, yes, I am a WP geek) is to click random and fix stuff. All the best and happy editing. - Sinneed 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Luvthecity

Hi - I've created a Luvthecity wikipedia document to describe the listed company's details and describe who the site is hosted with, who they do business with and the impact that vertical search engines are having on the UK property market. Please can you review your suggested deletion? Kind regargs, Stepneyjack —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepneyjack (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Oasishouse / Bob Sorge

Thank you for your assistance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oasishouse (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi on 'Nicola Blackwood' page.

So after your intervention you warned us that we had one more reversion each. So I (as I have done repeatedly) proposed new text, incorporating more of Sumbuddi's opinions and trying for a balanced view. Sumbuddi 'undid' and reverted to his same old text, no comment, no attempt at discussion or compromise, nothing. I have tried different versions, I have tried engaging him in discusion, nothing. he is now in his 13th reversion to the same POV text he has been pushing for weeks, completely ignoring and not even aknowledging the changes and different version I put forward. I have supported my edits with unimpeachable sources (The BBC news webpage and others) he refers to it as vandalism and does yet another UNDO.

In the end, he doesnt like Blackwood, but posts happily and favourably on the page of her now-defeated political opponent Evan harris. he is partisan, unreasonable, uncompromising, and in violation of several Wiki rules and your warning. help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.49.241.171 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The anon has got increasingly abusive, and has ignored my repeated attempts to explain to him that his edit is in violation of several Wikipedia policies. He has been reverting to the same version that I have explained is defective, and is making no attempt to improve his text, and accusing me of bias towards Dr Harris, which is absurd considering the two ([1] [2]) edits I have made to his page. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a sysop to look at the article and the dispute and do what he thinks best. What both of you really need to do however is to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse carcass. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Re your post about G11 nomination of European Music Council on my usertalk page

Hello, several days ago you posted a comment on my talkpage that has curious. You said, "I've seen your work in the hang-on shop." Could you provide me a link as I am curious to see what's there. BTW, supposedly some anon IPs about a month said that there's a website where I am either number one or number two (I think they said #2 but in an abbreviated manner) in nominating articles for CSD. Maybe the next one shows up, I will ask for the URL. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, by my reference to the hangon shop I only meant that in doing hangon patrolling that I'd seen your name come up often enough to (a) remember it and (b) remember it without also remembering having a frequent reaction of, "this guy's off his rocker." Taken together it means only that I've noticed your work and, on the whole, thought you were doing a good, responsible job. That doesn't mean that I've not seen instances where I disagreed with you, but it does mean that even in those instances I didn't think you were being arbitrary or unreasonable or in bad faith and that counts for something in my book. I suppose that you could be a total villain and I've just seen the rare instances in which you were a saint, but if so then I'm glad that I've seen your good side. As for diffs, I said what I said on overall impression and reflection and regret that I can't recall any specific examples. Sorry I can't be of more help. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The race for AFD

Looks like I created the nomination first; I tagged your page for deletion; I hope you don't mind. — Timneu22 · talk 15:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of withdrawing as you were speedying, so absolutely no disagreement, glad you did. Have added a delete in your nom. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll give 'er a test drive. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for your kind and thoughtful comments and advice. Terpsichore1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC).

John O. Merrill

John O. Merrill is not an appropriate article for the speedy deletion process. --Tenmei (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Details Collapsed

Justification The burden of research supports the notability of John O. Merrill; and the following is sufficient to rebut any "speedy deletion" argument. In summary, the notability of John O. Merrill is verified by reliable sources: (a) the obit in the New York Times, (b) the article in the Grove Art Online, (c) the article in the American National Biography and (d) WorldCat Identities ... plus (e) the previously mentioned but unused article in the Britannica online. Notes ^ a b c d e f g h "John Merrill Sr., Architect, Dead," New York Times. June 13, 1975. ^ a b Museum of Modern Art (MOMA): SOM citing Richard Guy Wilson (2009). Grove Art Online, Oxford University Press. ^ "Merrill, John Ogden," (1999). American National Biography, Vol. 15, pp. 360-361. ^ a b c d Lehman College Art Gallery, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM), Merrill bio notes ^ Westcott, Ed. (2005). Oak Ridge, p. 61., p. 61, at Google Books ^ Nauman, Robert Allen. (2004). On the Wings of Modernism: the United States Air Force Academy, pp. 72-80., p. 72, at Google Books ^ Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard. (1989). Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering & Construction, Vol. 4. p. 454. ^ "Radical Design Dropped For Air Academy Chapel," New York Times. July 4, 1955. ^ "Residential Work Rising in Chicago," New York Times. February 14, 1937. ^ "Name Consultants for Building Code," New York Times. March 26, 1950. ^ American Institute of Architects Historical Directory, Merrill, ahd1030138 ^ a b WorldCat Identities: Merrill, John O. References Nauman, Robert Allen. (2004). On the Wings of Modernism: the United States Air Force Academy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 10-ISBN 0252028910/13-ISBN 9780252028915; OCLC 52542599 Westcott, Ed. (2005). Oak Ridge. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. 10-ISBN 0738541702; 13-ISBN 9780738541709; OCLC 62511041 Wilkes, Joseph A. and Robert T. Packard. (1989). Encyclopedia of Architecture: Design, Engineering & Construction. New York: John Wiley. 10-ISBN 0471633518/13-ISBN 9780471633518; OCLC 300305038 The article text explains that John O. Merrill is Notable for design and development of the US Air Force Academy campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project in Colorado Springs, Colorado Notable for design and development of the Manhattan Project research campus; and he provided on-site architect construction oversight for the project and for the new community which was created at Oak Ridge, Tennessee Notable for design, development and construction of the permanent US military facilities on Okinawa, including the still controversial Kadena Air Force Base Notable as a founding partner of the prominent international architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill (SOM); and also notable for his seminal influence on development of unique SOM corporate culture

I've slept since I touched the John O. Merrill article and no longer remember what I did there, much less why I did it, or what the state of the article might have been at the time. Since I'm not a sysop I can't go back into the deleted versions to refresh my memory, so I can't offer much explanation or help here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

When you tagged this stub, there were no inline citations and only one reference source listed. Additional research has remedied this flaw; and the hyperlinked New York Times obituary confirms the notability of this architect. The more fully developed article will be re-created as a stub in mainspace. --Tenmei (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking me for, if anything. I'm not tracking that article and I'm not waiting to pounce on it as soon as it shows back up in mainspace or anything like that. Good luck with it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

When I'm at all unsure about conventional protocols in wiki-reality, my default strategy involves making guesses about formal courtesy. Please feel untroubled by this.

As a matter of curiosity, when you hear or read about relocating the controversial US military facilities on the Japanese island of Okinawa, you may recall that this architect was a leader in the design and construction of these bases. --Tenmei (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nationwide Diesel Technologies

Nationwide Diesel Technologies is hardly a school by an company/organisation and is not notable for a Wiki article. Bidgee (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Though I agree in principle, such deletions have to be handled through WP:PROD or WP:AFD because the inclusion of trade schools in the A7 exclusion is firmly established in the talk page archives at WP:CSD. Unfortunately, the article is not unambiguously promotional, so doesn't fall under G11. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

PS: Please note that I'm not agreeing or asserting that trade schools (or for that matter, any schools) ought to be excluded from A7, as I'm not at all sure that they should. But they are. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

But it is not a school. Even Technical and Further Education and private education/training campuses in Australia are not schools but organisations (some private are infact run by companies) so I see no difference. The speedy was correct. Bidgee (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's your source of authority for that assertion? I'll gladly reverse my declination if I'm wrong, but everything I've seen at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion suggests that I'm right. (I looked it up some time back in relation to, as I recall, a dance studio/school.) I'm not trying to be argumentative or prove myself right: if I'm wrong then I'd like to not commit the same error in the future. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Google "Technical and Further Education is an organisation". Says it all really. Bidgee (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_35#A7:_Propose_rewording_regarding_.22schools.22, especially towards the end. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Really just a stale discussion. Bidgee (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've posed this question at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Trade_schools_redux. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:Ponce De Leon Boutique Hotel

The first thing you pointed out was a revert of what appeared to be experimentation. It also served as a reminder to "Msprings31" to use the edit summary. The this second edit was a tag for speedy deletion as the article seemed to be a unremarkable business, possibly self promotion. Either way, it had been around for a while without any changes or steps towards Wikification or reliable sourcing. I put the speedy deletion tag to either have the page removed or get it noticed enough get the proper cleanup. I was patrolling the recent changes page at the time, and with no edit summaries about, many of the edits were taken out of context, making them seem unnecessary. I believe that the deletion tag was a bit premature. I'll put a Wikify tag on instead. EW_ikist^Talk 17:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The categories seemed to be entirely appropriate, how was it that you took them to be experimentation? I still think that I'm missing something... As for the speedy, 'nuff said. Thanks for taking the time. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome! I'm always open to questions. EW_ikist^Talk 17:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

I've been in and out of the talk page to see how discussions are going but wanted to give it some time for folks to actually express themselves. I'll dig back into it today and see what sense I can make of it. Thanks for the message. — e. ripley\^talk 14:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dzhambulat Khatokhov

I noticed that you succesful got the article deleted. Is there no way there could be an article or him being mentioned in an article about his weight? Kingjeff (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Coordinates of Cricket Field Lane

That's the one! Thanks for fixing it. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Dele Momodu

Thanks for your message on my talk page about the author of the deleted article Dele Momodu asking for help. I have posted on the user's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Sovereign Prime

Thanks for the note; I left something on the guy's page explaining why it was speedied. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD Pacific Prime

Hi, i went through the article and found some more relevant references pointing to the notability of the company. Can you let me know if this is sufficient, or if i have to do something else? thanks for your help. Scrugbyhk (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The Paging Game

Hi. Just thought I'd let you know that after you declined my speedy deletion, the creator filled the entire page with vandalism. with his pasted copyvio again. You may have been right about it no being an advert, but it should still be CSDd - very speedily.--Kudpung (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem may be bigger than the adequacy of the copyright permission. See my note Talk:The_Paging_Game#Copyright_issues.2C_round_3 here. As for what's gone before, I noted the possible inadequacy of the cited notice, but did not tag it G12 because, frankly, I'm not a WP-copyright guru and was not (and am not) sure why Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online says, "This notice must state that your site (or portions of your site) are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) or that it is in the public domain," while the copyright policy says, "In other words, you may only import text that is (a) single-licensed under terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license or (b) dual-licensed with the GFDL and another license with terms compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." The first one appears to say that it must be the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses, exactly, the second says or and makes it appear that it can be a "compatible" license to the CC-BY-SA, and I'm not sure what compatible means, either. I have enough faith in the community to believe that if I were to study all of that stuff long enough that there's answers to my confusion, but I've not done so yet, nor am I certain that I care to. The article was already tagged by the bot as a copyvio and I figured that someone with more expertise on copyright issues would come along, as you did, to address the issue. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

...for providing a 3O at Talk:Province of Pomerania. I have one follow-up question for you [3]. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I'll use the sources you've mentioned, cheers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lowy Institute for International Policy

Hello TransporterMan, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lowy Institute for International Policy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See also http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Lowy+Institute+for+International+Policy%22&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&sa=N&start=0. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Being familiar with criterion A7 and having looked back through the article with the credible–assertion point in mind, I respectfully but firmly disagree and have no need of reviewing the criteria, but per CSD a declination is a declination and there is no need to further belabor the point. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Australian Industry Group

Hello TransporterMan. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Australian Industry Group, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has existed for several years. Thousands of hits on Google News. Use AfD instead. Thank you. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, I again respectfully disagree with the manner in which you are applying CSD but bow to your declination. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

With appreciations...

		Civility Award
		Your response to my comments at the bottom of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenell Edmonds are appreciated. While we disagree about whether or not this young actress has notability, however marginal, or whether it has merit to allow the article to remain and grow over time and through regular editing, the manner of your response was quite courteous. You underscore a weakness where guideline actually encourages original research when speaking toward "large fanbase or cult following", when "large" and "fan" are such subjective terms. Those who orchestrated that section of ENT should have attempted to give more objective means by which editors might quantify those terms. And your "two cents" underscores a point I had not considered, in that as a paperless encyclopedia, Wikipedia should strive to be "more" than her paperbound breathren, not less... and certainly not an imitation. We'll disagree... but without bloodshed (chuckle). And toward your final sentence and your analogy to to RfA, NOTNOW... you may wish to review my own essay WP:TOSOON, which I believe is what you had in mind by your anology. And I do agree, her notability is very close to the line of ready or not ready. I just think it's slightly on the plus side... slightly. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the award. I am, admittedly — see the "this user tries hard not to be a Wikilawyer, but sometimes struggles with it" userbox on my user page — sometimes a wikilawyer, but I try to give wikilawyering a good name by having sound reasons for applying policy/guidelines. I've only taken a glance at your TOSOON essay, but what I've seen, I like, and I look forward to having time to read it more carefully. I'm truly glad to meet you: I particularly value the Wikipedians with whom I disagree in principle but who practice civil, reasoned discourse. They're the ones who point out the things that I've failed to see and can cause me to change my mind about things. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Keio university dispute

TransporterMan,

May I please request your mediation for the article Keio University. The section on academic rankings continues to be edited en masse. It seems that THE, QS, and ARWU are the only existing rankings that evaluate Keio's academic quality. Users, however, continue to distort these rankings (ex. for THE, users delete the international ranking, and instead only include its ranking in the social sciences) or swamp it with all sorts of rankings that do not evaluate academic quality (ex. web popularity, proportion of alumni who are CEOs). I've reorganized the section, and have addressed my rationale and concerns in the discussion section.

I'm not the biggest fan of academic rankings myself, but what bothers me most is people who inflate the academic standing of their university by twisting the facts (not everybody can be first in the world). I'll be perfectly fine if people included new rankings that actually evaluated academic quality, but this is obviously not happening.

Your input will be respected, and I will abide by the consensus. Just FYI, this is the section for academic rankings, so I believe that academic rankings should take precedent (in order and attention).--149.142.75.234 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but after the comments I left on Wikipedian05's talk page, any opinion which I would give might seem to be biased or otherwise non-neutral. Please re-list your dispute at the Third Opinion project and some other Third Opinion Wikipedian may choose to give an opinion. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey, I removed the third opinion. The dispute was between me and Enok, to which Enok conceded to my view of the dispute when I clarified the reference I gave him was in fact, fact. Thanks for offering your help by the way. Sopher99 (talk) 03:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See the article talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Yep, I'm back! Thanks for your concern, but fortunately, I'm doing better than ever :-) The story: a lot of my Wiki-time in early 2010 was while I was at work, but in April, I got a new job that has quite a bit less free time. So, I was more or less forced to take a Wikibreak for a while. Now that I'm more or less settled again, I'm starting to spend some time (but probably less than before) poking around. I'm looking forward to working with you guys again :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 20:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you're all right, look forward to seeing you around the wiki. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shenell Edmonds

How about we split the difference on your thinking she is just below the bar and my thinking she is just above? I would not be adverse to a merge and redirect to List of One Life to Live cast members, as long as we can spin her back out if/when she wins an award or gets another notable gig. Reasonable? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, will note at AfD. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

CSD and hangon question re Todsakorn Bunpen

i already add {{hangon}}and{{db-bio}} on the top of page . it correct? Jerdzaa

I've already corrected them for you. Use your time to improve your article. Please sign talk page posts with four tildes: ~~~~ — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Mint

Hi! Thank you for your kind message. I already checked that Twinkle thing but because it wasn't compatible with Internet Explorer (and because I want to keep it as my browser) I decided not to install it. Anyway, I chose not to put the article up for AfD because it came to my mind after some researching in Google that it might be a notable band, because I found some minor coverage about them in foreign sources. Thank you again for the message anyway, it's good to know that there are people who respect your work here =) Regards, Spatulli (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

In appreciation of your integrity

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		In appreciation of your integrity and honor in regards to the AfD for Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo, I hereby award the Barnstar of Integrity to TransporterMan. This is a well-deserved award and I am very thankful for your honesty. - Hydroxonium (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much -      Hydroxonium (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

My Apologies

TransporterMan I would like to say sorry for my comment on the Arkansas Alligator Farm and Petting Zoo deletion page. I did not mean it as a personal attack towards yourself, I am sorry for that. I have struck the comment and have written an apology on the page as well. I hope there are no ill feelings. Regards ZooPro 23:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary, I didn't take it personally, but thank you nonetheless, hope to see you around the wiki. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 00:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Transporter Man, Benderwiki again. Put the hangon tag in my page. The issue that that Joyce Bender (my page) is the same person on the benderofcanada page, that is why the text is so close. I am writing an email to permissions is there anything else I can do to resolve this? Thanks

Joyce Bender

Are you sure User:Benderwiki/JoyceBender is a copyvio of http://benderofcanada.com/bio.html ? I can't see it myself. Astronaut (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking again, the text is totally dissimilar. Astronaut (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Begin by comparing User:Benderwiki/JoyceBender#Background with Professional Experience, then search on "Pittsburgh Disability Employment Project for Freedom" in both articles. There's been a light rewrite, but I think that all it's done is to put so many chunks of copyvio into the text that the entire article is contaminated. I didn't check every word, but my initial impression is opposite of yours. Best regards and thanks for the inquiry, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. But that looks like the only similarity. The rest of the article looks quite good to me and substantially different from the bio webpage. Perhaps a bit of editing would be a better approach than slapping a speedy deletion notice on a userspace draft that is still in development. Anyway, for the time being I have removed the problematic background section - I'm sure Benderwiki can come up with some suitable non-copyvio wording to replace it. Astronaut (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That fixes the worst of it but there are more phrases and paragraphs, but with the deletion of the Background section you've convinced me that G12 no longer applies and I'm going to decline my own speedy, unless you beat me to it. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PH Flexible Packaging

You undid my removal of the spam notification on this article. While I agree that this article is lacking in terms of encyclopedic quality and needs more work to establish notability, I fail to see why it is considered spam. I think we all know what spam is when it hits email in-boxes. I have no quibble if the issue is notability, and agree that more work needs to be done. Enquire (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I undid it because the creator of a page is not allowed to remove a speedy deletion tag, whether they disagree with it or not. It has to be left in place until a sysop declines the nomination or deletes the page or until an experienced user who is not a sysop declines the nomination. I respectfully disagree about whether or not the page is spam, but we'll let a sysop decide. If you disagree with the speedy nomination, put a {{hangon}} tag directly beneath the speedy deletion tag and explain why you think that the article is not spam on the article talk page. Please see my notes on the article talk page and on your user talk page about why Sealed Air is probably notable, but PH may not be. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not realize previously that a page creator cannot undo a speedy deletion tag, but understand why that might be. I did note, however, that the spam notification was placed by an unregistered (though) active user who goes by an IP address... I should add that I have no vested interest whatsoever in this company and only created it because, previously, Jiffy bag (which they make) was previously redirected to Sealed Air who manufacture a competing product Jiffy Rigi Bag. I do not wish to be seen to be promoting PH Flexible Packaging but I does seem that if Sealed Air is notable, then quite probably PH Flexible Packaging is too. Please see my comments on the Talk:PH_Flexible_Packaging. ~ Enquire (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Davis & Shirtliff

Hi Transporterman, I saw your excellent post at Talk:Davis & Shirtliff - thanks for your continued support in defending our policies. I had the original article, Davis & Shirtliff Group speedy deleted, which he immediately recreated as Davis & Shirtliff. The creator has left a message on my tp refuting policy decisions, and I have replied on his tp at User talk:GeorgeVaulkhard. You are welcome to make any follow up you deem necessary. I may shortly be taking it have taken it to AfD for lack of a better process - the article is IMHO blatantly promotional and the only references are a long list of spam links, and to a totally irrelevant link to a university.--Kudpung (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA

I'm sorry I did not get around to voting on your RfA. It all happended so quickly and then you withdrew while I was still tackling the subject of my post above. I would probably have !voted 'oppose' too, but only to give you more time to be prepared for another RfA which I certainly hope you will make again in a few months time. We all make mistakes at CSD, even the voters at RfA. The main thing is that you have already shown that you know what ought to be deleted. Occasionally using the wrong tag is forgivable. FWIW,; You know what I would do with this : this ? There is no criterion in the CSD list that matches it, so I would first PROD it using exactly the same sentence used in the A7 rationale. The PROD tag is almost certain to be removed by the creator without comment, and I would then take it to AfD suggesting 'Delete & merge to school district or locality as per usual procedure.' In Wikipedia, only high schools are de facto notable; primary and middle schools are just too numerous to justify an article unless they have done something extraordinarily notable. You were right in assuming it should not be in the encyclop)die, biut it was the wrong way to go about it. But it was also wrong for the opposers to suggest that your error in tagging is a demonstration of blatant lack of understanding of our policies. Pile-on opposes due to one or two isolated, innocuous errors are just not fair, but the closing 'crat can't do much other than count the votes in such a situation. Some of us are working in the background to find a way of fixing these anomalies in the RfA process. Perhaps you would like to help. You don't need to be an admin to join in the discussions. --Kudpung (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind comments, and I apologize for not responding to your prior post re Davis & Shirtliff, the issues regarding which were just a little too complicated with all else I had going on. I'll take a look at the RfD when I get a little breathing time, and thanks very much for your tips. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Interested in being nominated for adminship at WP:RFA? Quarl ^(talk) 07:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm very honored that you would even ask. Yes, I think that I'd like to give it a try, and I very much appreciate the offer. I had a discussion with RegentsPark about it when my edit count was at about 3,500 and we decided that it was somewhat too soon, but I think it might be okay now that I'm over 4,600. (He might like to co-nom me, by the way.) I'd like to bring him into the discussion, if you don't mind. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll make a great admin and would be happy to co-nom. But, I'm totally tied up with real life issues and have very little time for wikipedia (I try to avoid it as much as I can!). So, if the nom timeframe is a couple of weeks, I'll join in as a co-nom, otherwise I'll just !vote in the support column. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Quarl, I think we're okay to go forward, if you still feel like it's a good idea. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Timing note: I'm going to be traveling and off-Wiki altogether from October 29-November 9, inclusive. Do you think that it would be best to wait until after I get back to do the nomination? I'm in no hurry. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've nominated you: WP:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan. Please take a look at WP:GRFA and also some recent successful and unsuccessful RFAs, if you haven't already. Regarding timing, I think now is fine (the process runs for 1 week), but you're welcome to wait to accept it later. To accept, 1) edit WP:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan to say so, answer the questions, follow the instructions about the end date; 2) transclude the page by adding {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/TransporterMan}} to WP:RFA. I'm not sure if it's important to opt-in to edit counters or not as there are plenty that will give statistics without any kind of opt-in. Quarl ^(talk) 00:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's ready to go, but I'm holding off entering the acceptance and doing the other steps, waiting to see if RegentsPark has time to co-nom. Thank you very, very much for your confidence in me. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• I've done the needful and closed your RFA. Don't be too discouraged, A1 is the bane of RFA candidates everywhere. I think you'll do well if you choose to stand again in the future. Best regards, –xeno^talk 13:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's too bad. I think you'll make an excellent admin. We need polite, thoughtful people with the good of the project in mind and, in my book, you fill that description admirably. Why people get so fixated over CSD tagging, which, IMO, are always open to interpretation, escapes me completely! Don't give up and I'll be there to write a better co-nom the next time. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess we did this too soon. You should try again. Quarl ^(talk) 18:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

RFA

T'man, sorry to see you withdraw your RFA nom. I think you would have made an excellent administrator. I thought your comments to the "opposers," especially on the CSD issues were right on. Please do try again after the passage of some time. I'd nominate you. Regards. Saebvn (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and for your support, I really do appreciate it very, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with everybody else, I am sorry to see you withdraw from the RfA. They are also correct in stating you would be a good admin — I have no doubt about that. I would like to encourage you to re-apply when you feel the time is right because we need good people like you. Best regards. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 04:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Best regards, 17:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TransporterMan. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 21:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the prompt action

Thanks for the prompt action on Bill Green. Philadelphia City Council members are, to my mind, inherently notable, and sometimes infamous, but several Council members have gone on to be Mayor. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Forensic mitigation

Why not add it to the main debt relief article? There's not really enough to warrant it's own article. HalfShadow 20:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I for the reasons stated in my AfD nomination, I don't think it even gets that far. The creator appears to be a law firm which specializes in this and I've put a username warning on their user talk page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh; just trying to be fair about it. HalfShadow 20:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

declining speedies

Just a hint. When I decline a G11 as not hopelessly promotional, or a A7 as having some claim to importance, but notability is dubious or it clearly needs improvement beyond what I've given it, I also tag it accordingly. I certainly add an unsourced tag when appropriate. The person who placed the speedy would probably do so anyway if they're keeping track, but I think this facilitates further improvement. (and I've found it helps to make it very clear that I know it's not actually a good article). DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip, I very much appreciate it. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 00:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

3O

Hi TransporterMan. Your recent non-3O is being discussed on the 3O talk page. FYI. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

3o issue

Hello, TransporterMan, thank you very much for responding to the 3o issue at Talk:Erhard Seminars Training. If you check the archives, you will see that there has been extensive back-and-forth discussion with this user MLKLewis (talk · contribs) over inappropriate use of sourcing for POV promotion of the organization, whitewashing of factual history, etc. I have already notified MLKLewis (talk · contribs) and requested that they engage in discussion at the article's talk page. That is why there actually has been significant prior talk page usage and discussion, and why I went to WP:3O. Would certainly appreciate your input, at Talk:Erhard Seminars Training. Thank you very much for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, there has now since been a comment added to the thread by admin John Carter (talk · contribs), so I think we are all set for now. Feel free to comment if you wish. Thanks for your contributions to WP:3O, I know it is often a thankless arena. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, I just reverted my removal, having missed the archives. If you think that the dispute is settled, please remove the listing at 3O. I couldn't give a 3O, anyway, under the project guidelines since you and I have had prior dealings, so I think I'll abstain. (And on second thought, I probably shouldn't have been the one to remove the listing, either.) Thank you for the thanks. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If our only prior dealings were you giving a different WP:3O, in a particular case where both parties agreed to your 3O, then I do not really see that as an issue precluding you from participating. Of course, recusal is totally your call and I will not object, but it is up to you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AGN International page deletion

I have been notified that you (TransporterMan) put a speedy deletion notice on the AGN International Article. Once this was put on to the site I have had to check the page on a daily basis as more than once there has been a note for speedy deletion.

On this request it has been done under section A7 of the criteria because the article appears to be about a person, organisation (band,club, company)or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. AGN International is similar to Baker Tilly and Grant Thorton and these articles on Wikipedia have not had speedy deletion put on them. Please can you advise on how we are able to keep our article on Wikipedia without deletion taking place. Your help would be very much appreciated. Thanks Sarah —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmyGNorris (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The most recent deletion was not a speedy deletion, but was the result of a deletion discussion at Articles_for_deletion/AGN_International, which I did, indeed, initiate. The article was deleted because it did not cite any "reliable sources" and none could easily be found for it. (The reasons are set out more fully in the discussion.) You ask, "Please can you advise on how we are able to keep our article on Wikipedia without deletion taking place." The short answer, and please forgive me for being blunt, is that it may not be possible to do so at this time. Wikipedia is not MySpace, Facebook, a blogging site, or the like where anyone who wants to put up a page is generally free to do so. It's an encyclopedia and subjects of articles must already be publicly recognized as being important or significant before an article about them can be included here. Wikipedia judges public recognition by whether or not "reliable sources" can be given for the subject. If "reliable sources" exist, then the article is "notable" and, in general, ought not to be deleted. I've put quotation marks around "reliable sources" and "notable" because you can't judge them based just on the dictionary definition of those words. They have very specific meanings in Wikipedia and you're probably going to continue to be confused and frustrated until you get a firm understanding of what they really mean. The meaning of "reliable source" can be found in the verifiability policy and expansions of it, and its reflection in the concept of "notability", can be found in the Identifying Reliable Sources and Notability guidelines and their various subpages. In very general terms, before a person, place, thing, organization, or idea can be included in Wikipedia it must have:

• already been recognized
• as important or significant
• by objective, independent, and provable third party sources
• with a established reputation for fact-checking
• which are independent of both the subject of the article and of Wikipedia itself
• and which are not just publishing trivial facts, passing references, or repetitions of press releases.

That's just a plain-English generalization of the actual rules to give you an idea of what's going on here, so don't rely on it but refer to the actual policies instead. (For a great analogy illustrating these concepts, see WP:SCRABBLE.) Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and (especially, since you are affiliated with AGN) Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)