This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
{{
helpme}}
Copyright–silent Sites: Is there a policy or guideline or essay or something which gives (in reference to the
WP:ELNEVER prohibition on linking to sites which violate copyright) guidance on how to evaluate a site which:
I'm not seeking to further an argument with anyone nor gore an ox, I'm just trying to figure out what to do and not do. -- TransporterMan ( talk) 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again. TransporterMan ( talk)
If you read this edit on the Sky Ride talk page and saw the discussion about the Knoxville, Tennessee, transporter bridge/aerial tramway, you might be interested in knowing that it was probably in use for only 3-4 months at the most (and perhaps as little as 2) before it broke down, killed someone, and never reopened due to the resulting lawsuits, per this account (be sure to read the comments at the end of the article). TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on pleonasm! At this point, I'll let it sit. If the other user changes his mind and agrees to remove the quote, that'd be great; if not, I'll let it sit there until some other editor comes by (maybe after Aladdin Sane and I have forgotten all about this) and they can make the call.
I appreciate your help!
-- Narsil ( talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we edit conflicted when both trying the give the 3O at the above article. All yours, but I tossed in an opinion anyway. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Mediation Award | ||
Thank for your 3O Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For creating the Third Opinion Award! :-) ...and for all the other work you've done recently to improve the Third Opinion project Mildly Mad T C 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
See talk. Note please identify the points I made, which were from a neutral standpoint. Signature:-- Rickens ( talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read the post and don't repost it! Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a hostile response to someone not on the 3O list offering a third opinion! That wikiproject needs to come with a warning. I'll offer to go keel over. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As you will see from the Talk:Swansea page, there's a little controversy brewing. I didn't realise, when I entered the great Monopoly debate, that there was already a request in for a third opinion. Please could you review the situation and find a "truly independent" third party to satisfy User:Welshleprechaun? Deb ( talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If I cant get a third opinion, what would be another option to resolve this type of dispute? Dan56 ( talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your imput on above page. I have made suggestion which addresses the smaller issue in the wider context of the entire section/article. If you have a moment. Djflem ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the 'apparent vandalism'. This is a shared computer. The individual will be severely reprimanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.113.92 ( talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A very happy 156th birthday to Mr. Sherlock Holmes. I hope these greetings find you still well supplied with royal jelly and thus in the best of health. Please give my warm greetings to Dr. Watson. Your most humble servant, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks! That's an excellent way to responsed to a 3PO. Is that a template you used? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Michael_Scofield#Death. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on Natalia Brasova. Pevernagie ( talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved to User_talk:Dgarq#Misuse_of_3O_Third_Opinion_Template TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Mysdaao has eaten your {{
cookie}}! The cookie made them
happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{
cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
-- Mysdaao talk 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan, First of all, thank you for being a good Wikipedian. This message is in response to your reply as Third Opinion on the Kundalini syndrome article. As you have pointed out, I checked the books (hard copy) and couldn't find a proper reference to the phenomenon of Kundalini syndrome in these books see proof. So all I wanted in a clarification: What happens to an article, if it is provided with wrong citations. I presume, the best that can happen is, it will be tagged with please provide citations. But what happens if there are no citations (for over 3 years)? Should't the article be deleted? Please provide me with your inputs since I am relatively new to the world of a good WIkipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your 3O on Talk:The True Furqan. -- SJK ( talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Orpheus#Thracian_origin TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Literary_sources_for_the_origin_of_the_Romanians#Third_Opinion_Request — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Best message to a new user I've seen, ever [ [3]] Gerard PFAW 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
<Blush> Thank you, very much, indeed. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Just to let you know, an edit you made came up at the 3O talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you volunteer a good bit of your time to keep the third opinion option maintained for all of us Wikipedians. I don't know you, but I do appreciate your efforts. If I investigated more about your history, I suspect you would more-than-deserving of a barnstar or three. For now, I offer my simple nod of appreciation. Cheers! BigK HeX ( talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for offering your third opinion on Talk:Aqua (band)#Danish-Norwegian or just Danish?. I'm hoping that the dispute is now closer to being resolved. Heaika ( talk) 10:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For your many contributions to the Third opinion process. Thank you! — RegentsPark ( talk) 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - you seem to have deleted my 3O request. My dispute with another editor remains. Please could you revert your change and/or explain why you deleted it? I may have missed something. Many thanks - Chumchum7 ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution.
The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Reverting_vandalism_by_Sanam001 -- Sanam001 ( talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! It is certainly something I'll get into, and a really good idea... not that somebody didn't revert against my third opinion as soon as they saw it :/ SmokingNewton ( talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
You have removed the {{ geodata-check}} template from the Talk:Kenilworth railway station article but nothing appears to have been done to resolve the problem that was identified of Google showing the placement for this article in the incorrect place. Can you indicate what has been done to resolve the problem? Thanks. Keith D ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide a 3rd opinion on the Prekmurian/Prekmurje issue. Doremo ( talk) 07:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification and advice regarding the 3rd-opinion procedure. Doremo ( talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't need to do that, but I haven't eaten yet today so it's particularly appreciated! --~ T P W 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that you have provided a 3O opinion for the article Edge Church before any further debate was held between myself and user:Luna Santin. Before making a 3O request the issue should have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. Since this issue had not come to a standstill your involvement was premature and may not have been helpful. Ozdaren ( talk) 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the talk page discussion on Prostitution in Rhode Island. You Can't Clap with One Hand ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In your third opinion response, you mentioned a study by Wolf a few times. You were referring to the study by Hawk, correct? DigitalC ( talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming to you first because I was impressed with your objective 3O on the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron, and your close attention to the Wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Please could you take a look at recent edits at London Victory Parade, which have resulted in section blanking. As you'll see on User:Varsovian's Talk page I have the feeling there is a more general issue at stake, and have requested friendly administrator analysis of an apparent long term trend. Please take a look at that. Still, in my experience, you'll be the best person to deal with a 3O on this short term case of the London Victory Parade. Many thanks, Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I am expressing this in the correct venue. Thank you for (i think) defending the article Canvass for a Cause. I am a gay rights activist in San Diego, and the group means a lot to me. I wrote the article because the group is very important to people like me that struggle on a daily basis to be accepted for basic rights and acceptance. I understand I am fairly new to Wikipedia, only having authored a half dozen articles, but I am very committed to the work so far. I appreciate your opinion in the speedy deletion case, and would like you ask you advice as to the topic. IF you have any advice as to how I can improve the article, and prevent future attacks please send me a message. I am always looking for ways to improve. Again thank you for your work, Ciao, -Tres Xyxyboy ( talk) 04:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to reiterate your comments from Talk:Shachne Zohn at the page's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shachne_Zohn. -- רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your input. Based on it, I have made a proposal, which is on the discussion page of the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks. Bfiene ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your prompt attention. I have revised the workspace page you posted for my convenience. I made the one sentence change in the introductory paragraph and replaced the Post WW II section to reflect my changes, which are this section's first paragraph. Many thanks. Let me know. Bfiene ( talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
TransporterMan: I have made the agreed to changes to the Erich Schumann page and removed the NPOV tag. Thanks for your prompt attention and putting up the work space page for me. Regards, Bfiene ( talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We need to stop coddling Prosfilaes. He is clearly attempting to push a POV, and is not objective in his train of thought, accusing me, absurdly, of trying to "own the article" for reverting his removal of sourced content. It does not make sense that a statement that was already determined to be non-notable and not objective in any way, shape or form has been stitched back into the article while removing content that is sourced and objective to satisfy a POV-pusher. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 20:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
Thanks for the help. I since tried to align the article more towards Wikipedia's goals. In the end, I find that speedy deletion process quite offensive. At the very least, when it's applied, the userfy option should be automatic for 30 days, you can't count on people being behind their screens all the time... Also, it means we have to locally save any significant edit because it can be zapped instantly. Thanks again, -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't use 3O all that frequently. Should this have been placed somewhere else? - Schrandit ( talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I hereby certify that I attempted to privately mediate the dispute between Hammersoft ( talk · contribs) and BQZip01 ( talk · contribs) described, in general (but not comprehensively) here and, more recently (but still not comprehensively), here and here, on the basis described here and here and agreed to by both parties and myself here and here. Though both users participated in good faith, it became apparent to me early in the process that no settlement could be reasonably expected to be achieved and in accordance with the right that I reserved when establishing the mediation process, I terminated the mediation. The failure of the mediation cannot be attributed to either user alone, and I commend both parties for being willing to try to settle their dispute. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You've previously were involved in attempting to resolve disputes between myself and BQZip01. If you would, please certify the basis of the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01_and_Hammersoft#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. Please note I'm not asking you to take sides in any respect, just certify that the basis (or bases) exist for the RfC to move forward. Based on your above comments, I know you do not want to get involved. Your involvement isn't necessary (but welcome if you wish to provide it). I'm only asking that you certify there is basis (or bases) for the dispute and the need for the RfC to move forward. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Moved to article talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) And again — 03:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You've done a couple of coordinate checks, so maybe you could help out with someting else somewaht related. There seems to be some conflicitng statistics that are cited but not really referenced regarding the size of Ellis Island and which portions are original/which are landfilled. Do you have a tip/resource for the lay person as to how this can be clarified? Much appreciated~ Djflem ( talk) 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Refreshing to see careful, balanced consideration. (I'm not sure if this is where I leave these) — Kestasjk ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your time and effort. — Ac44ck ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the quick and thorough third opinion you provided at Talk:Saint Patrick Seminary, Menlo Park.-- Stepheng3 ( talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Posted my answer to your question here. Tom Danson ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
for this. I sort of oscillate between using Twinkle because it's easy, and trying to be less bitey. Hence, I really appreciate the effort you took to leave the message for him. Cheers, {{ Sonia| talk| simple}} 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I clarified my remarks on the article's talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{trout}}
Whack declined - CSD should be only for the most obvious, most blatant cases; this one has at least a tiny bit of credibility and needs to be, if anything, an AfD. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
. . . and I sent it to you via the "email this user" link. kcylsnavS{ screech harrass} 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Copied to
Talk:1996_Padilla_car_accident#License_Plates_and_Insurance.
If discussion continues please continue it there, not here —
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK) 13:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion Collapsed
|
---|
You have made your point. I am not going to edit the articles relating to the Okinawa car accidents again. Let me ask you this. Would inserting the sentence "In addition to the compulsory insurance, in 1997 US Servicemembers were required to obtain supplementary insurace." into the article be inappropriate? Last thing, and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. The entire concept of "verifiability, not truth" is entirely bullsh!t. When I hear that I think that obvious inaccurate information can be added to an article as long as there is a reference to that material. Even if it is obviously not true. For example: Someone publishes an article about the JFK assasination, references the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, and states that all Marines are trained to assasinate political figures. According to the "verifiability, not truth" concept, someone could write an article regarding this, cite the article, and no one could do anything even though it is obviously false information. In my opnion this does not make for a well written encyclopedia. Thanks. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I only consider Johnson to be presumably reliable.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: The publishers of Johnson's book, Metropolitan Books (hard cover) and Owl Books (softcover), are both imprints of Henry Holt and Company, a major and respected publishing house. However, if you'll look back through my opinion, you'll note that I did not rely on Johnson as reliable so much as I took the position that, reliable or not, his book did not support the things he was being cited as a source for. The only time I suggested that something that he said might be used to support something was when I said that he might be used as a source for the fact that Padilla did not have insurance; that's a fairly safe citation since it could be libelous if it is false and since Holt would, therefore, be likely to do fact-checking on that kind of thing for their own protection, especially if Johnson is, as you say, a "biased liberal" and his work likely to be controversial. I'm sorry, but I don't recall how Millea Holdings Inc. fit in and I don't recall evaluating it or considering it in giving my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just found your Millea Holdings link. I'd forgotten it when wrote earlier today, so let me look at it. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
By the time we are done you may want to start your first archive. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) First, nothing to apologize for, I've enjoyed our discussion. Second, I'm afraid that I've already seriously strained the boundaries of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and to go further to help you evaluate new sources would take me over the line altogether, so I'm going to have to respectfully — and truly regretfully — decline your invitation to do that and, if I know anything about Marines, it's that you'll understand an obligation of honor. You've got the tools, however, and I don't doubt for a minute that you'll do fine with them. Go forth boldly and go get 'em! Finally, I hope you don't mind, but just for the sake of propriety I'm going to put a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, just noting that it occurred. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
TransporterMan, I enjoyed our debate and thanks again for taking the time to talk. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your help. Your helpfulness made everyone happy. Regards, -- Manway ( talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — Manway ( talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
In re: [5]. I suggest you look at the dispute [article history] at least 5 people are involved, so the removal of the item from 3O was perfectly appropriate.
P.S. I am only "involved" because I was trying to mediate the existing dispute. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, it was only brought to 3O after Nutrieg was unsatisfied with the 3 responses he got at the RS noticeboard. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in with a 3O at Michael Levin. Seems to have got us past a sticking point... Cheers. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On talk you recommended Pavel Parasca for speedy deletion. (Then you retracted.) But Dalderdj has added a large number of pages that all have what appears to me to be the same lack of notability -- being a member of a commission for a study. I've requested Dalderdj explain how they feel these people meet WP:BIO. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. What did I do? I don't remember meeting you before. As for Donald Fiedler — yes, I'd say that being the head of a significant organisation is enough to avoid A7. Nyttend ( talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right - sockpuppetry will get one blocked around here faster than anything else. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute on the Sub-Saharan Africa article that you recently helped mediate. There's a problem with an aggressive new WP:SPA that has just shown up on the article's talk page, yet already demonstrates a strange understanding of the "lingo" of Wikipedia (for example, 1) and how to post and edit. He's also reverting back to the other disputant's preferred version of the article (and in the process removing sources), but without making any attempt at all at a real discussion -- just personal attacks. When you find the time, could you please drop by and have a word? Regards, Soupforone ( talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
{{
helpme}}
Copyright–silent Sites: Is there a policy or guideline or essay or something which gives (in reference to the
WP:ELNEVER prohibition on linking to sites which violate copyright) guidance on how to evaluate a site which:
I'm not seeking to further an argument with anyone nor gore an ox, I'm just trying to figure out what to do and not do. -- TransporterMan ( talk) 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again. TransporterMan ( talk)
If you read this edit on the Sky Ride talk page and saw the discussion about the Knoxville, Tennessee, transporter bridge/aerial tramway, you might be interested in knowing that it was probably in use for only 3-4 months at the most (and perhaps as little as 2) before it broke down, killed someone, and never reopened due to the resulting lawsuits, per this account (be sure to read the comments at the end of the article). TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 22:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in on pleonasm! At this point, I'll let it sit. If the other user changes his mind and agrees to remove the quote, that'd be great; if not, I'll let it sit there until some other editor comes by (maybe after Aladdin Sane and I have forgotten all about this) and they can make the call.
I appreciate your help!
-- Narsil ( talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, we edit conflicted when both trying the give the 3O at the above article. All yours, but I tossed in an opinion anyway. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The Mediation Award | ||
Thank for your 3O Weaponbb7 ( talk) 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For creating the Third Opinion Award! :-) ...and for all the other work you've done recently to improve the Third Opinion project Mildly Mad T C 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC) |
See talk. Note please identify the points I made, which were from a neutral standpoint. Signature:-- Rickens ( talk) 00:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Please read the post and don't repost it! Thanks. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a hostile response to someone not on the 3O list offering a third opinion! That wikiproject needs to come with a warning. I'll offer to go keel over. -- IP69.226.103.13 ( talk) 21:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. As you will see from the Talk:Swansea page, there's a little controversy brewing. I didn't realise, when I entered the great Monopoly debate, that there was already a request in for a third opinion. Please could you review the situation and find a "truly independent" third party to satisfy User:Welshleprechaun? Deb ( talk) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
If I cant get a third opinion, what would be another option to resolve this type of dispute? Dan56 ( talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your imput on above page. I have made suggestion which addresses the smaller issue in the wider context of the entire section/article. If you have a moment. Djflem ( talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for the 'apparent vandalism'. This is a shared computer. The individual will be severely reprimanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.113.92 ( talk) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A very happy 156th birthday to Mr. Sherlock Holmes. I hope these greetings find you still well supplied with royal jelly and thus in the best of health. Please give my warm greetings to Dr. Watson. Your most humble servant, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks! That's an excellent way to responsed to a 3PO. Is that a template you used? -- Ronz ( talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Michael_Scofield#Death. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion on Natalia Brasova. Pevernagie ( talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Moved to User_talk:Dgarq#Misuse_of_3O_Third_Opinion_Template TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 15:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Mysdaao has eaten your {{
cookie}}! The cookie made them
happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more {{
cookie}}s, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{ subst:munch}}!
-- Mysdaao talk 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan, First of all, thank you for being a good Wikipedian. This message is in response to your reply as Third Opinion on the Kundalini syndrome article. As you have pointed out, I checked the books (hard copy) and couldn't find a proper reference to the phenomenon of Kundalini syndrome in these books see proof. So all I wanted in a clarification: What happens to an article, if it is provided with wrong citations. I presume, the best that can happen is, it will be tagged with please provide citations. But what happens if there are no citations (for over 3 years)? Should't the article be deleted? Please provide me with your inputs since I am relatively new to the world of a good WIkipedian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep ( talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your 3O on Talk:The True Furqan. -- SJK ( talk) 22:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Orpheus#Thracian_origin TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Literary_sources_for_the_origin_of_the_Romanians#Third_Opinion_Request — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 16:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The Helping Hand Barnstar | ||
Best message to a new user I've seen, ever [ [3]] Gerard PFAW 17:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
<Blush> Thank you, very much, indeed. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Just to let you know, an edit you made came up at the 3O talk page. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like you volunteer a good bit of your time to keep the third opinion option maintained for all of us Wikipedians. I don't know you, but I do appreciate your efforts. If I investigated more about your history, I suspect you would more-than-deserving of a barnstar or three. For now, I offer my simple nod of appreciation. Cheers! BigK HeX ( talk) 18:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for offering your third opinion on Talk:Aqua (band)#Danish-Norwegian or just Danish?. I'm hoping that the dispute is now closer to being resolved. Heaika ( talk) 10:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
For your many contributions to the Third opinion process. Thank you! — RegentsPark ( talk) 17:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you, very much. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 17:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi there - you seem to have deleted my 3O request. My dispute with another editor remains. Please could you revert your change and/or explain why you deleted it? I may have missed something. Many thanks - Chumchum7 ( talk) 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123in malayala sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution.
The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nair#Reverting_vandalism_by_Sanam001 -- Sanam001 ( talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! It is certainly something I'll get into, and a really good idea... not that somebody didn't revert against my third opinion as soon as they saw it :/ SmokingNewton ( talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC).
You have removed the {{ geodata-check}} template from the Talk:Kenilworth railway station article but nothing appears to have been done to resolve the problem that was identified of Google showing the placement for this article in the incorrect place. Can you indicate what has been done to resolve the problem? Thanks. Keith D ( talk) 22:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to provide a 3rd opinion on the Prekmurian/Prekmurje issue. Doremo ( talk) 07:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification and advice regarding the 3rd-opinion procedure. Doremo ( talk) 04:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
You didn't need to do that, but I haven't eaten yet today so it's particularly appreciated! --~ T P W 14:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that you have provided a 3O opinion for the article Edge Church before any further debate was held between myself and user:Luna Santin. Before making a 3O request the issue should have been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. Since this issue had not come to a standstill your involvement was premature and may not have been helpful. Ozdaren ( talk) 07:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding to the talk page discussion on Prostitution in Rhode Island. You Can't Clap with One Hand ( talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
In your third opinion response, you mentioned a study by Wolf a few times. You were referring to the study by Hawk, correct? DigitalC ( talk) 18:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming to you first because I was impressed with your objective 3O on the Polish 303 Fighter Squadron, and your close attention to the Wikipedia guidelines and ethos. Please could you take a look at recent edits at London Victory Parade, which have resulted in section blanking. As you'll see on User:Varsovian's Talk page I have the feeling there is a more general issue at stake, and have requested friendly administrator analysis of an apparent long term trend. Please take a look at that. Still, in my experience, you'll be the best person to deal with a 3O on this short term case of the London Victory Parade. Many thanks, Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I hope I am expressing this in the correct venue. Thank you for (i think) defending the article Canvass for a Cause. I am a gay rights activist in San Diego, and the group means a lot to me. I wrote the article because the group is very important to people like me that struggle on a daily basis to be accepted for basic rights and acceptance. I understand I am fairly new to Wikipedia, only having authored a half dozen articles, but I am very committed to the work so far. I appreciate your opinion in the speedy deletion case, and would like you ask you advice as to the topic. IF you have any advice as to how I can improve the article, and prevent future attacks please send me a message. I am always looking for ways to improve. Again thank you for your work, Ciao, -Tres Xyxyboy ( talk) 04:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you would like to reiterate your comments from Talk:Shachne Zohn at the page's deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shachne_Zohn. -- רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your input. Based on it, I have made a proposal, which is on the discussion page of the Erich Schumann article. I look forward to a resolution of the issue. I trust you will comment. Thanks. Bfiene ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello TransporterMan: Thanks for your prompt attention. I have revised the workspace page you posted for my convenience. I made the one sentence change in the introductory paragraph and replaced the Post WW II section to reflect my changes, which are this section's first paragraph. Many thanks. Let me know. Bfiene ( talk) 19:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
TransporterMan: I have made the agreed to changes to the Erich Schumann page and removed the NPOV tag. Thanks for your prompt attention and putting up the work space page for me. Regards, Bfiene ( talk) 14:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
We need to stop coddling Prosfilaes. He is clearly attempting to push a POV, and is not objective in his train of thought, accusing me, absurdly, of trying to "own the article" for reverting his removal of sourced content. It does not make sense that a statement that was already determined to be non-notable and not objective in any way, shape or form has been stitched back into the article while removing content that is sourced and objective to satisfy a POV-pusher. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 20:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC))
Thanks for the help. I since tried to align the article more towards Wikipedia's goals. In the end, I find that speedy deletion process quite offensive. At the very least, when it's applied, the userfy option should be automatic for 30 days, you can't count on people being behind their screens all the time... Also, it means we have to locally save any significant edit because it can be zapped instantly. Thanks again, -- AlainR345 Techno-Wiki-Geek 17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I don't use 3O all that frequently. Should this have been placed somewhere else? - Schrandit ( talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
I hereby certify that I attempted to privately mediate the dispute between Hammersoft ( talk · contribs) and BQZip01 ( talk · contribs) described, in general (but not comprehensively) here and, more recently (but still not comprehensively), here and here, on the basis described here and here and agreed to by both parties and myself here and here. Though both users participated in good faith, it became apparent to me early in the process that no settlement could be reasonably expected to be achieved and in accordance with the right that I reserved when establishing the mediation process, I terminated the mediation. The failure of the mediation cannot be attributed to either user alone, and I commend both parties for being willing to try to settle their dispute. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 03:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello. You've previously were involved in attempting to resolve disputes between myself and BQZip01. If you would, please certify the basis of the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BQZip01_and_Hammersoft#Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute. Please note I'm not asking you to take sides in any respect, just certify that the basis (or bases) exist for the RfC to move forward. Based on your above comments, I know you do not want to get involved. Your involvement isn't necessary (but welcome if you wish to provide it). I'm only asking that you certify there is basis (or bases) for the dispute and the need for the RfC to move forward. Thank you, -- Hammersoft ( talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Moved to article talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC) And again — 03:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
You've done a couple of coordinate checks, so maybe you could help out with someting else somewaht related. There seems to be some conflicitng statistics that are cited but not really referenced regarding the size of Ellis Island and which portions are original/which are landfilled. Do you have a tip/resource for the lay person as to how this can be clarified? Much appreciated~ Djflem ( talk) 23:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Refreshing to see careful, balanced consideration. (I'm not sure if this is where I leave these) — Kestasjk ( talk) 03:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your time and effort. — Ac44ck ( talk) 16:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the quick and thorough third opinion you provided at Talk:Saint Patrick Seminary, Menlo Park.-- Stepheng3 ( talk) 15:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Posted my answer to your question here. Tom Danson ( talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
for this. I sort of oscillate between using Twinkle because it's easy, and trying to be less bitey. Hence, I really appreciate the effort you took to leave the message for him. Cheers, {{ Sonia| talk| simple}} 22:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I clarified my remarks on the article's talk page. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
{{trout}}
Whack declined - CSD should be only for the most obvious, most blatant cases; this one has at least a tiny bit of credibility and needs to be, if anything, an AfD. TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
. . . and I sent it to you via the "email this user" link. kcylsnavS{ screech harrass} 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Copied to
Talk:1996_Padilla_car_accident#License_Plates_and_Insurance.
If discussion continues please continue it there, not here —
TRANSPORTERMAN (
TALK) 13:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Discussion Collapsed
|
---|
You have made your point. I am not going to edit the articles relating to the Okinawa car accidents again. Let me ask you this. Would inserting the sentence "In addition to the compulsory insurance, in 1997 US Servicemembers were required to obtain supplementary insurace." into the article be inappropriate? Last thing, and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. The entire concept of "verifiability, not truth" is entirely bullsh!t. When I hear that I think that obvious inaccurate information can be added to an article as long as there is a reference to that material. Even if it is obviously not true. For example: Someone publishes an article about the JFK assasination, references the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, and states that all Marines are trained to assasinate political figures. According to the "verifiability, not truth" concept, someone could write an article regarding this, cite the article, and no one could do anything even though it is obviously false information. In my opnion this does not make for a well written encyclopedia. Thanks. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I only consider Johnson to be presumably reliable.
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: The publishers of Johnson's book, Metropolitan Books (hard cover) and Owl Books (softcover), are both imprints of Henry Holt and Company, a major and respected publishing house. However, if you'll look back through my opinion, you'll note that I did not rely on Johnson as reliable so much as I took the position that, reliable or not, his book did not support the things he was being cited as a source for. The only time I suggested that something that he said might be used to support something was when I said that he might be used as a source for the fact that Padilla did not have insurance; that's a fairly safe citation since it could be libelous if it is false and since Holt would, therefore, be likely to do fact-checking on that kind of thing for their own protection, especially if Johnson is, as you say, a "biased liberal" and his work likely to be controversial. I'm sorry, but I don't recall how Millea Holdings Inc. fit in and I don't recall evaluating it or considering it in giving my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just found your Millea Holdings link. I'd forgotten it when wrote earlier today, so let me look at it. — TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
By the time we are done you may want to start your first archive. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) First, nothing to apologize for, I've enjoyed our discussion. Second, I'm afraid that I've already seriously strained the boundaries of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and to go further to help you evaluate new sources would take me over the line altogether, so I'm going to have to respectfully — and truly regretfully — decline your invitation to do that and, if I know anything about Marines, it's that you'll understand an obligation of honor. You've got the tools, however, and I don't doubt for a minute that you'll do fine with them. Go forth boldly and go get 'em! Finally, I hope you don't mind, but just for the sake of propriety I'm going to put a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, just noting that it occurred. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN ( TALK) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
TransporterMan, I enjoyed our debate and thanks again for taking the time to talk. Bunns 1775 ( talk) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
The Third Opinion Award | ||
Thank you for your help. Your helpfulness made everyone happy. Regards, -- Manway ( talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) — Manway ( talk) 22:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
In re: [5]. I suggest you look at the dispute [article history] at least 5 people are involved, so the removal of the item from 3O was perfectly appropriate.
P.S. I am only "involved" because I was trying to mediate the existing dispute. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, it was only brought to 3O after Nutrieg was unsatisfied with the 3 responses he got at the RS noticeboard. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in with a 3O at Michael Levin. Seems to have got us past a sticking point... Cheers. -- Anthon.Eff ( talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On talk you recommended Pavel Parasca for speedy deletion. (Then you retracted.) But Dalderdj has added a large number of pages that all have what appears to me to be the same lack of notability -- being a member of a commission for a study. I've requested Dalderdj explain how they feel these people meet WP:BIO. Regards, Piano non troppo ( talk) 21:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome. What did I do? I don't remember meeting you before. As for Donald Fiedler — yes, I'd say that being the head of a significant organisation is enough to avoid A7. Nyttend ( talk) 00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You are quite right - sockpuppetry will get one blocked around here faster than anything else. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 22:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute on the Sub-Saharan Africa article that you recently helped mediate. There's a problem with an aggressive new WP:SPA that has just shown up on the article's talk page, yet already demonstrates a strange understanding of the "lingo" of Wikipedia (for example, 1) and how to post and edit. He's also reverting back to the other disputant's preferred version of the article (and in the process removing sources), but without making any attempt at all at a real discussion -- just personal attacks. When you find the time, could you please drop by and have a word? Regards, Soupforone ( talk) 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)