User talk:TransporterMan/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Pure Heroine mediation

Welcome back, Tristessa. Just thought I'd note a couple of observations about that mediation:

The filing editor hasn't edited WP since April 1 (at least not signed-in; there are a couple of IP edits on other articles which might be him), has only 34 total edits, and no email account registered. You might have to move forward without him, but there's at least one other active editor who took the same position, so that may be possible.
The discussion has moved on substantially at the article talk page with a number of additional editors joining in who weren't participating when the request was filed. There's not been any discussion, but a bit of editing in mainspace, on this point over a month, so there may not be a real or active dispute still pending. If there is a dispute, you might need to add some additional parties and get their consents.

Just thought you might like to know. Though I'm also a member of MedCom, I've not taken it because of potential bias on my part: I hate disputes about music genres and don't feel that I can bring anything to them. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan! Indeed, as you say, the filing party seems to have gone dormant and Talk:Pure Heroine has shown significant activity on the subject — I therefore worded my opening question as neutrally as possible so as not to assume that the dispute was at the state it was when filed, if that makes any sense. I've asked the fairly narrow question as to whether it can be included both in "Pop" and "Art pop" simultaneously based on RSes, which I think is really the crux of the dispute between the parties. It's quite an easy one to take on as my first back from hiatus, I believe. Again, thanks! --Tristessa (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I do have a question for you, however, if you would be kind enough to help. Being the former queen of the MedCab at one point I'd immediately want to ask on the Talk: page belonging to the article for editors to participate in the mediation discussion — is that permitted for MedCom mediations? --Tristessa (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Tristessa, sorry for the late reply. I don't edit much on weekends. I don't see why you can't handle the mediation much as you see fit and what you propose would seem to be absolutely appropriate to me, especially in this case. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Assault Weopons Ban

Greetings. I just wanted to let you know that I provided a 3O at the assault weapons ban page, but you got to the 3O talk before I could remove it. If you still wish to provide a 3O, you are of course absolutely welcome. Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Please note in the future that the instructions at the 3O page say, "When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort." (Emphasis added.) That's just what happened, though it wasn't quite a duplicate; I found yours there when I went to post my completed 3O. It would be inappropriate for me to opine now as that would make me just another participant in the discussion there, which I do not care to be. If I posted wearing my 3O hat, on the other hand, it would cancel out your opinion since my conclusion was going to be opposite the one which you drew (though I do feel that it was a close call either way). They've got their 3O, if it doesn't settle their dispute they can move on to DRN, MedCom, or RfC. Nonetheless, thank you very much for posting here and for helping at 3O. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops! Goes to show you can never read the instructions too carefully. Due apologies, and thank you. Out of curiosity, what was your reasoning there? (you don't have to answer that if you're busy.) Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You've got email. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN closure.

I left an explanation at the bottom of the discussion on the DRN talkpage, but I noticed that you stated that you had a conflict of interest with one of the participants that held you back from re-opening the case. I did not know our guideline on interactions meant that we could not open or close the case. If this is the true than I was wrong in closing or even making a note on the case because I have had previous interactions with Bugs ( I was against their being sanctioned after an Arb Com case) and we both work on the reference desk.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I probably take a more restrictive stand as to my own activities than most people do. It comes from me being a lawyer and being in the habit of not wanting to give the mere appearance of impropriety. That's a stricter standard than is required by DRN's rules, so don't sweat it, you're fine. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh...I thought it sounded pretty good and added it to our guidelines, but if you feel that is too restrictive please feel free to revert that.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I tweaked what you put in and removed the appearance part; the Wikipedia community is too narrow and our volunteer ranks are too small to get that restrictive, I'm afraid. Remember that the "real" rule is what's given in the header of the main DRN page and that it is very carefully balanced: It leaves the decision on bias up to the good faith of the volunteer unless someone objects (indeed anyone, not just a participant in the dispute) and then forces the volunteer to either step aside or take it to the DRN talk page for a decision. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right. The pool of volunteers being so small is exactly why I felt it likely to be reverted after i made the change. Thanks for weighing in on it.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DRN Talk:United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2014[edit]

Did I not state in the DRN that the offending users have refused to talk? I guess I will just have to file a vandalism report. Eric Cable | Talk 14:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@EricCable: If you'll notice, the other party has made a response at the article talk page. I'd suggest also being very careful about accusing others of vandalism. That term has a very specific meaning here at WP, which does not include your use of it, and accusing someone of vandalism is itself a breach of Wikipedia rules. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Dalmatia

Yes a RfC was opened, users made their comments but User:Director ignored the comments and edited the article his way. What should I do? Cannot I open a discussion of the DRN? Can you please teach me how to close the existing RfC if this is compulsory to open a DRN? --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think I actually found the way [[1]]. Can you please confirm this is the way to follow?

That probably won't work until the RFC has time to run its course. I'd strongly suggest leaving the RFC open. The purpose of a RFC is to draw in other editors to the discussion and many times that doesn't happen until several days or weeks into the process (there's always a bit of a backlog). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will follow your suggestion. Thank you for your help.Silvio1973 (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U

Dear User as you know Director and myself experience often difficulties in communication. For this reason I have filed a RfC/U to discuss about this problem. I must confess that I genuinely believe he deals with me with improper language (inaccaptable, regardeless of the difficulties of communication we experienced). I did not file an AN/I because I would like to have a large discussion about this issue. And may be I am the guilty one.

If you want to partecipate to the discussion as a "User who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" or "Additional user endorsing this cause for concern") you can do at [[2]]. Seen your seniority your input to succesfully close this RfC is more than welcome.

To avoid the suspicion of canvassing I am contacting all the users involved in the previous and present dispute. If you think I forgote someone please tell me. Silvio1973 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

New DRN coordinator

Somehow I don't see this working. Your thoughts?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've chimed in. Let's see if he responds in the next few days. If he doesn't then I think we can presume he's given up and you or I can take over the position or ask for a more experienced volunteer to do it. If he does respond, perhaps he'll agree to my suggestion. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

DNR

Since you closed the case, do you know an actual way to draw more editors to the discussion about Mexico? RfC is not working. Can you maybe give your opinion in the issue? Aergas (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Solar Roadways

I am notifying everyone who participated in the Solar Roadways DRN that there is an open RfC at Talk:Solar_Roadways#RfC:_Should_the_cost_to_cover_the_entire_USA_be_included.3F. Thanks. -- GreenC 20:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Mail

You've got mail too. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 21:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

PONY!

Pony!
Congratulations! For incredible patience with a not-so-new user, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw ^(talk) 20:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Thank you, very, very much, partner. I'm a Native Texan who's never owned a cayuse and now I have one. I'll have to get a cyber-trailer for my cyber-pony. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I have carrots and sugar over at the pony prize page, if needed. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your efforts. By the way, in regard to the one reference that was so disputed by the one editor on the one article - I added it to a similar article, and she made no issue about it at all. Thanks again. Daniellagreen (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. I appreciate it! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can only be in one ring of the circus at a time. :-P Montanabw ^(talk) 17:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Toes

Hi T-man, For perceived efficacy, I've moved your talk page comment into a new section here. If this does not meet with your approval, please feel free to change things back to they way you wanted or ping me and I'll do it. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me, my friend. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment/Conduct rejected

Hi TransporterMan, thanks for leading me to the right place in this dispute. However, I posted on Request for comment but my request was immediately turned down. I looked for help on the help desk, but still don´t know what is wrong, it's about conduct. Also, the editor who discarded my request, on whose Userpage Talk I posted, is not responding. Why cannot I post on Request for comment? Thanks again for your time Iñaki LL (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What you've been told at the Help Desk is that when that editor looked through your misfiled RFC/U draft, they did not feel that it stated a conduct request which would obtain any relief, but more closely stated a content dispute. As you stated it at DRN your request was about conduct and requested relief - giving warnings and blocks - which we do not do at DRN. As such, I referred you to conduct forums based on your choice and statement of what you wanted to do and have done. By doing so, however, I did not mean to suggest that you would either succeed or fail at those forums, only that if you wanted to raise conduct rather than content that was where to go since DRN does not handle conduct. It would appear that your request for an RFC/U was removed because it was not filed in the right place. You must precisely follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance in order to file such a request. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I am still lost, it is a conduct matter and the resource is on User conduct, I mean comments on user conduct. I am positive it is a problem of disruptive and obstructive editing. I explained that my aim was a warning or a temporary block from the article because that is what I think should apply, perhaps the resource should state what the aim is beforehand, and avoid the confusion. Anyway, frankly I am not sure if I am being required to have more specific evidence, like breaches of the rule 3 reverts, or state other aims, or try another resource like posting diffs in his Userpage talk as per dealing with disruptive editors. Sorry to burden my query on your shoulders but I am quite confused and it is taking quite a long time. Any input is appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The initial place to get administrative actions, like blocks, is at ANI or by request to an individual administrator. RFC/U is only to get the advice and evaluation of other ordinary editors — some of whom may or may not be admins — about a user's conduct, either as a optional-but-not-required preliminary to moving on to block or banning requests or simply in the hope of causing the user to see the error of their ways (though sometimes it happens that it boomerangs and it is the filing editor who learns that). Not being an expert in conduct matters and not being, myself, an administrator, I express no opinion about what the editor said at the help desk about your request, but would note that the editor who said it is neither an administrator nor an experienced user. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually what you are saying on RFC/U should work for me, but coming back with a like request only aims changed may not be welcome. I am interested in 3o-s, but that has been used by now at the request of the editor in question with no good outcome for him, but he would keep going with other objections. A mediator on conduct would be welcome, it's conduct. I was quite a long time ago in an ANI case with a very frustrating experience to be honest. I am positive on the conduct of the editor, but after that experience I am not sure what the ANI will come up with, so will try to avoid it. Should you know another conduct mediation resource, please let me know. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If by "coming back with a like request" you mean coming back at RFC/U, you wouldn't be coming back with a like request because the first one was not filed in the right place. It was, for all practical intents and purposes, never made. When properly filed, the request's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jotamar and that page has never existed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that's what I wanted to know, thanks for your patience! Iñaki LL (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi TransporterMan, many thanks for your guidelines in this journey, re page Navarre. I opened a Request for comment, you can find in this link. It requires a comment of someone participating in the dispute (section Users certifying the basis for this dispute of the latter link), your input on your participation is much appreciated. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Once again your request has been closed by a third party because it was not filed at the right place. Read what I said above: "When properly filed, the request's URL will be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jotamar and that page has never existed." That statement is still true. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for checking in!

Thanks for checking in last month. Sorry I left so abruptly, especially when DRN issues were pending. I'm working on some "real life" projects, which will be done in a few weeks. After this, I'll be back on a more consistent basis. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you're well. Don't forget that you've signed up for the DRN coordinator position starting December 1 and probably need to be active at DRN for a month or so before that so you're up to speed and aware of current trends. I'll look forward to seeing you then, if not before. Best luck with your RW projects! Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

I hope I remember this advice (Responding to a failure to discuss) in the future. Lightbreather (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Trap Music

Hi I am user 129.178.88.81 I have now set up an account as advised by user Nograviti who helpfully tried to raise a dispute on my behalf. I noticed you closed it and said that the issue has not been discussed enough. User StaticVapor has ignored all requests from myself or others to explain why he doesnt feel sources provided are not good enough. At this point I am not sure how to proceed, as I contacted him this morning, he then made an edit to his talk page a few hours later and is not responding to polite requests to return to the discussion. Could you please speak to him a moderator?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by UKBassHead (talk • contribs) 12:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

First, now you have an account, please sign all your talk page postings with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. Next, if the other editor will not discuss, consider the advice I give here. In addition to that technique, there is probably enough discussion already to consider filing a Request for Comments, which does not require the extensive discussion needed for other forms of dispute resolution. Finally, if by "moderator" you mean administrator, I'm not one. I'm just a regular editor just like you who happens to volunteer to do dispute resolution work. I will drop a note on his talk page, however. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I have explained it numerous times, the sources they "cite" are either nonexistent, WP:OR or plain unreliable. I just got tired of the berating, refusal to understand original research and uncivilness of the two editors in question. There is also another editor that has been reverting and responding to them on the article talk page, so I am not sure why they are jumping all over me. STATic message me! 15:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Lithium ion battery - Line 158 edit

Hello TransporterMan, no problems :) I just felt mentioning Syzdek et al. directly in the text was weird, since there are hundreds of research groups that are working on the same thing. So just wanted the paragraph to convey that, or else a casual user might end up thinking that Syzdek et al, whoever they are, are the only experts on solid polymer electrolytes, which is obviously not the case. I let the reference to their paper stay, though :) Thanks for pointing out, I rarely edit Wikipedia articles so am not aware of the protocols and rules involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.11.70 (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

DRN

I cannot take this case do to a prior conflict with one of the parties. I'm hoping you or someone else can adopt it. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it, but it will be Monday or Tuesday before I get a chance. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Why did you close the discussion on ‎Talk:Russia#MISTAKE IN RANKING NOMINAL GDP.It's 9th on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard?

I was wondering why you closed this discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=618028084&oldid=618028009 The discussion only lasted from July 19 19:45 to July 22 18:01

--198.23.81.141 (talk) 22:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't close it, the case is still open. Why do you think that I did? All I did was to collapse your comment about another editor's behavior. Comments about conduct are not allowed at DRN and a warning had already been posted there saying not to do it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:16, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Hargeisa

Hi TransporterMan. Per your recommendation at DR, I have opened a new discussion here on the Hargeisa plane monument. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Irene Caesar

Hi TransporterMan.

Thank you for your input regarding my edits on the Irene Caesar entry. Your concerns about defamation are serious, and they deserve to be treated as such. I won't pretend to be versed in all of Wikipedia's policies. You strike me as more knowledgeable in this area than I am, so let me solicit your input: what's an appropriate way to create an accurate entry -- warts and all -- about Ms. Caesar within the confines of Wikipedia policy? My intent was not to defame either Ms. Caesar or the organizations and individuals that she accuses of misdeeds. I cited statements she herself made in her blog, so I think (but again, I speak as someone of limited experience as a Wikipedian) she can't reasonably accuse us of defaming her. As far as the other parties she mentions, it seems to me that she's more at risk of defaming them than we are. Anyway, my main intent was to illustrate (using her own published statements as proof) her pattern of making unsubstantiated claims. In this context, can you suggest language that would be more appropriate for the entry? For example, might I say "Ms. Caesar has a pattern of making unsubstantiated claims..."?

On a broader basis, her own words suggest that she is a proponent of conspiracy theories and not simply an "apolitical" artist without an agenda. As Wikipedians we shouldn't use prosecutorial or partisan language, but I do think that as a notable figure meriting a Wikipedia page, she should be portrayed "encyclopediacally", the good the bad and the ugly so to speak. One of the difficulties is that her more-controversial beliefs have not been well documented in third party reliable sources; the main evidence stems from her own words in her blog and in interviews with sources that might not be considered reliable in Wikipedia. If you can help me navigate this catch-22, I'd be most grateful.

Thank you for your help with this matter.Scaleshombre (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

TransporterMan, Please don't take offense. I decided to follow Wikipedia's admonition to "Be Bold" and updated the section on Caesar's philosophy by citing some of her writing. I took care to avoid any references to specific third parties that could be potentially defamatory. I'm not going to try to conceal the fact that Caesar's views have got me "hot under the collar." I might not be the most dispassionate person in the world to edit her page, but in lieu of anyone else stepping forward to do so, I feel compelled to take on the task. I've tried my best to keep my emotions out of my edits to her page, and I believe I've worded it in such a way to honor Wiki policy on BLP. If I've fallen short of this goal, I will respect your decision to make more changes. But I do feel strongly that any individual who merits a Wikipedia page needs to be represented accurately, particularly if he or she has strong views that fall outside the mainstream.Scaleshombre (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Your new additions are a clear improvement over the ones I reverted and avoid the biggest problems I was concerned about (especially prohibited interpretation of primary and self-published sources). I'm not at all sure that they will completely meet BLP muster, especially BLPSELFPUB, but they're close enough to it that I'm out of my area of expertise. If the other editor reverts you, ask for the edits to be reviewed over at BLP noticeboard rather than just reverting back. Also consider following the advice I give here on dealing with an editor who will not engage in discussion. However, let me give you some general principles (though I'll be the first to admit that some of these are often overlooked once we get into detailed squabbles over edits).

First, remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to right great wrongs.
Second, that if you are impassioned about a subject it may indicate that you have third-party relationships which constitute a conflict of interest; Wikipedia strongly recommends (but does not require) that you avoid editing articles about which you have a COI.
Third, just because something is Indisputably True and Vitally Important does not mean that it can be included in Wikipedia. The standard is that everything in WP must to be supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Articles should be primarily supported by such sources. Primary sources can, within very strong limits, be used for some details but articles cannot be based primarily upon primary sources. Self-published sources generally cannot be used except for some very limited purposes, one of which is to fill in non-controversial personal matters about living persons from self-published sources written by that person.

Why, you ask, can things which are Indisputably True and Vitally Important not be included without this bureaucratic barrier? Because unlike a commercial, paper encyclopedia we do not have a paid professional board of editors who judge what is true and not true and what should and should not be included. Instead, we only include things which other sources, those which have something significant at risk if they don't do it right and have a reputation for responsibly dealing with that risk, have determined are true and important.

Fourth, it's very important to remember that we merely report what sources say. We don't synthesize or interpret it. A good understanding of the no original research policy is very important.
Fifth, there are a few things which are taken very seriously. One is dealing with matters concerning living (and recently deceased) persons. You know enough about that already that I'd just refer you to the BLP policy for a general read. Another is copyright of text and images, but that's a discussion for another day.

I hope this helps. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:27, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, TransporterMan. I'm grateful for you taking the time to look over my edits and give me detailed feedback. Your input is very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleshombre (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Scaleshombre (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

So far nobody's reverted me so that gives me hope. Meantime, let me pick your brain on a broader related issue. In recent years, Wikipedia has likely gained in importance as a "vetting" tool for employers, clients and others considering doing business with someone. Naturally, the one doing the vetting has the lion's share of responsibility in judging an entry's reliability and supplementing it with other research. That said, do we bear some degree of ethical obligation to researchers to ensure an entry presents, as far as possible, an accurate, well-rounded picture of the subject? In the case of Ms. Caesar, I was concerned that universities or other organizations looking to employ her and/or give her some sort of public platform would come away with the impression that nothing about her merits further scrutiny. What are your thoughts? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

We do have an obligation to present a balanced point of view, see NPOV, but that obligation does not set aside our other policies, such as those I've mentioned above. Indeed the first sentence on NPOV reads, "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (Emphasis rearranged.) Again, we're not here to right great wrongs or be a who's who or serve any particular constituency: we're here to create an encyclopedia, nothing more, nothing less. If the need of an employer for vetting goes beyond the kind of information which might be found in a biographical article in, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica, then that need may well not be satisfied here. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Pre order bonuses in list of Castlevania media

I have doubt that pre-order bonuses like Dracula X: Nocturne in the Moonlight and Akumajō Dracula: Yami no Juin – Fukushū no Jokyoku deserve to be in the List of Castlevania media since they were only available through pre-order. I don't know whether pre-order bonuses should be included in list of media based on a franchise. List of Final Fantasy media does not contain any pre-order bonuses. What is your opinion? KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

First let me say that I'm very much out of my element here: Though I've had computers for as far back as personal computers have been available, I've never been a gamer and I've not had much involvement with game-related articles here at Wikipedia which has moved past application of basic Wikipedia principles. That, therefore, is how I have to answer your question:

First, remember that every article stands alone unless there is a policy or guideline requiring it to be or not be fashioned in a particular way. I am unaware of any rule affecting this question — though again let me say that I don't edit in this area, so I can't say for sure (though I would think it very unlikely that there is) — so on that level, it would be perfectly acceptable for pre-order bonuses (POB's) to be included in Final Fantasy and not in Castlevania.
Second, the most basic principle on what goes into an article and what does not is verifiability. Though I've not dug into them deeply, the sources cited would appear to me to at least on first blush support the existence of these POB's, so that takes care of verifiability. (Whether the sources justify the
Third, those entries have been on the list for several months without being challenged. That creates consensus-by-default for them being there. To remove them will take either (a) a demonstration that they somehow violate a Wikipedia rule or (b) the formation of a new consensus for their removal. That consensus could come as simply as removing them and no one objecting, of course, but if anyone does object then a fully-discussed consensus or a consensus-by-concession (i.e. the objecting parties give up) will have to be formed before they can be removed.
Finally, what I think you really wanted: "Should" they be included. The argument in favor of their inclusion is that they are, in fact, "Castlevania media" and the lede of the list does not specifically exclude POB's or limit the list to only media which were available for general purchase. In light of that argument, about the only argument that I can think of for their exclusion would be that they were so insignificant that to include them gives them undue weight. Frankly, however, I don't think that argument is sufficient in light of the breadth of the article topic.

So, I think that they ought to remain in the list, but that's just my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC) PS: Remember that the high road is always to first propose the change on the article talk page. Let it sit for a week or so and then if no one objects, change away. TM — 14:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think the real reason no one has objected to the presence of POBs is because just like me other users don't know whether POBs should be on the list or not. I am not saying that is necessarily the cause but it could be. Actually I think no one has objected to them because no one has noticed them or if they have they might be confused whether they should be there or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

In general, we don't judge editors' actions by their motivations, but only by their actions. Regardless of the reason for no objection, there weren't any objections. Unless there was a policy or guideline which made their inclusion improper (e.g. lack of a source or a reliable source, original research, copyvio, etc.), then we presume that they were inserted in good faith and that the Wikipedia community thought that they were acceptable when no one made a timely objection. It's kind of like the presumption in law that everyone knows all the law. If you let people get away with stuff if they claim that they didn't know the law or what was in that contract that they signed, then the whole legal system falls apart because you can't be sure that any law or any contract will be enforceable. We have to have both stability and flexibility here at Wikipedia and consensus-by-concession and consensus-by-silence provide part of that balance. And they cut both ways: maybe you're right that in reality no one reverted or objected because they weren't sure whether or not they ought to be there. If you're right, and that's all it is, if you take them out and no one objects and a reasonable amount of time passes, then we'll have consensus that they should not be there (to be sure of that, you would really need to propose both your removal and your reasons for the removal on the talk page first and give some time for responses; otherwise, the fact that you removed them because you didn't think that they ought to be there might later be forgotten). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I had already posted about this matter on the talk page of the list some days ago. It's been a week and still no one has even commented at all. I think I was right all along that no one had noticed the POBs. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Teutonic Takeover of Danzig

I just saw you closed the WP:DRN case because nobody replied to my request. Contrary to your claim, the dispute is not resolved, I just waited for some neutral input instead of editwarring with someone who refuses to discuss. Unfortunately the whole procedure seems to be a complete waste of time. HerkusMonte (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:DISCFAIL

Hi, I took the liberty of adding a shortcut to your essay WP:DISCFAIL.

Have you considered moving the essay into the "Wikipedia:" space? It is an incredible useful guide and i think more people should see it. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile, sorry about the slow reply; I've been traveling and am just now back in the saddle. Thanks for the shortcut. As for moving it into the WP–space, I have no objection per se but I've always been too worried that it's too opinionated, too niche, and too jokey. It would require some reworking to keep it from being expressed as my personal opinion, as it is now. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi TM, hope your travels went well.

I'd be happy to help with the copyediting as needed, and we could perhaps open an RfC to get more input if you think helpful. I am interested in getting this out to a wider audience because (1) I think it fills a very important hole in the guidance available for editors working in difficult editing environments, and (2) it serves as a helpful structure for admins who have disparate views on what is acceptable outside of WP:DR.

Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me have a few days to get caught up and address a few other issues and then I'll take a crack at it. If I get stuck, I'll holler for help or let you know when it's done, in any event. Thanks for the friendly shove. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification of Mediation Rejection (Income Inequality)

I have been notified that my request for mediation has been denied. Is it your opinion that I should continue to make edits to the article on a piecemeal basis ... or is another message being implied (i.e. I shouldn't bother)? Is it your opinion that the article is not biased, and should therefore not subject to criticism or edit? Or is the decision strictly that a separate criticism section is not warranted? Just seeking clarification of meaning and intention of the decision. One other thing, if my observation that the vast majority of editors are 'like-minded' is correct ... and someone proposes to make edits that posits an opposing viewpoint and the edits are removed and/or challenged ... how would a request for mediation ever meet Prerequisite #5? All the other editors would need to do is not agree to mediation. Doesn't this conundrum make it virtually impossible for someone to make critical edits in good faith? In practice, its a firewall that protects the world-view of the majority. With that in mind, has Wikipedia undertaken research to determine the composition of its editors? Are its members evenly represented or philosophically and politically skewed? One would think that if Wiki were serious about being 'neutral' that they would want to know this. Thanks.Tolinjr (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The closure is not intended to imply anything about the merits of the dispute or about the merits of the position of any particular party to the dispute. Participation in moderated content dispute resolution is always voluntary and, indeed, more applications for DR fail due to refusal or failure to participate than succeed. (Which is, by the way, also true in real world dispute resolution.) However, to require participation or to have some kind of mandatory content arbitration flies in the face of the wiki model on which Wikipedia is based. As for the demographics of Wikipedia editors, there have been any number of studies, but so long as Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" then the demographics are simply what they are at any given time. What that may imply, I do not say, but if you'll take a look at the article on Reliability of Wikipedia you'll find that we generally produce a product which is at least very close to the reliability of other encyclopedias, if not equal or better. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. A couple of quick thoughts in closing ... I noted that in a previous discussion on your 'talk' page, that the term edit-warring was used. Having been thorough this process, and having interacted with several other editors, I must say that it is an excellent word, indeed. The Wiki system that you describe is one that places moderates (such as myself) ... and certainly conservatives ... in a very difficult position. As I am sure you are aware, the demographics of current editors is not a reflection of the public at large. A brief review of editor's user pages and their selection of userboxes reveals this almost immediately. As matter of fact, as I was building my own user page, I found dozens of pro-socialist, green party, anti-Bush, 99 per center, Occupy Wall Street, pro-Marx and Saul Alinsky, and almost a hundred various pro-Obama userboxes available ... yet I could not find a single one ... not one ... that was labeled 'business-owner' or 'entrepreneur' ... and there was only one that mentioned 'free-enterprise' at all. This is clearly a reflection of the demographic of editors. In fact, it would be easy for Wikipedia to tabulate which userboxes are being used, and how often ... and the results would be quite clarifying. For the record, among the most frequent Criticisms of Wikipedia are systemic bias, partisanship, 'hive mind' consensus, and exposure to political operatives. I would submit to you that an article like "Income Inequality in the United States" would be particularly subject to all of these. In fact, I can tell you, based on their discussions, their editing histories, and their own user profiles, that at least two of the editors who conflicted with me are political activists. And one happens to be a senior editor who has the ability to erase or 'lock-out' other editors from the system. Not good. Take a look at Wikipedia:Systemic Bias ... the article admits that editors are self-selecting ... Wikipedians are people that have enough free time to participate in the project. The points of view of editors focused on other activities, such as earning a living, are underrepresented ... and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Politics also discusses the fact that political bias exists and that one solution is ... Rather than only encouraging existing users, attempt to recruit new users to the project who can help counter these biases. TransporterMan ... I am one of those new users ... and I attempted to counter those biases ... and I have been effectively shut out of the system. Wikipedia seems to 'talk the talk' ... but it doesn't 'walk the walk'.

Irene Caesar

As someone previously involved with the page, I'm hoping you can weigh in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irene Caesar. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

1896 Cavaradossi

Dear TransporterMan, Thanks for your comment on the Fernando de Lucia talk page. I am the guilty party it seems and I have left an explanation and am about to remove the offending statement from the article. Please do query any other blunders of mine you may find and a word on my own talk page will usually get a reply! Thanks again, Eebahgum (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the update and the correction. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hands off of Drama

I hate drama. But I like to make sure the Wiki has the most accurate articles. I'm not nearly well versed enough in Peter Sellers to be able to create a RfC or Mediation. Can you suggest/create one for me?--RandomLittleHelper talk 18:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you've not been involved in the discussion you really shouldn't file for mediation or other moderated dispute resolution for the parties, but you can offer on the talk page to serve as a neutral party to help them formulate a RFC statement. The instructions on how to file the RFC are here and they're pretty straight-forward. What you would help with is step #3. Because of my duties at DRN (where I'm the coordinator for the next two months) and at MEDCOM (where I'm the Chairperson for the next five months), I'd prefer not to get involved with that. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up on Wikipedia, HACNY

Hi,

This Wikipedia person VQuakr (talk) removed by Atomic Hydrogen Power article without giving a reason that would be enough for the article to be removed.

My Atomic Hydrogen Power article consists of more than eight pages with quotes from science and trade magazine from scientists such as Nobel Prize winner in the 1930s, Dr. Langmuir, whose work on atomic hydrogen helped General Electric develop the atomic hydrogen welder in 1926 for international sales in the General Electric catalog. My article covers that and a lot more, and the atomic welder section is not a duplicate of what is on Wikipedia as the section I have handles its development by GE scientists. At the end of my article I have external links to GE films made of the atomic hydrogen welders in the 1940s that are on YouTube. My article has several sections including Dr. Langmuir's work with Dr. Wood on tungsten and thorium, as well as a brief medical section and more. Atomic hydrogen Welders were equipped with heavy suits and photographic film to measure radiation levels. My article also mentions a new particle regarding atomic hydrogen power later discovered in 1976.

One Wikipedia person, VQuakr (talk), had my article of Atomic Hydrogen Power removed, and that person seems to be quibbling about vocabulary of atomic hydrogen, as he feels it is not accurate. This "atomic hydrogen" term is what scientist Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Langmuir and other scientist named it, and the formulas they used to discuss it, and it is how it is printed in journals and trade magazines.

There is not much on Wikipedia about the development by early scientists of clean energy technology, or about General Electric prior to 1935. I would like my Atomic Hydrogen Power article put back up. Who do I contact to have my Atomic Hydrogen Power put back up? HACNY (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The processes for contesting a deletion are set out at Deletion review. If that does not succeed then there is no further appeal, as far as I know. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeking advice

Hello TransporterMan,

I have a content dispute with a user and we have discussed it in the talk page, in a RfC, then in a DRN, but all that failed to resolve the problem. Then, I requested a mediation but the other user didn't agree to participate and the case is rejected.

I read your WP:DISCFAIL and found it very interesting. But your assumption "editor simply won't respond, or won't engage in the back-and-forth discussion that DR requires" doesn't apply.

In the meantime I observed a pattern of misconduct by that user. Lies, proxying a tbanned user, fakes, and a refusal to consider all the reliable sources presented. Of course I think that I can deliver the diffs to prove my accusations.

Now, what is the next step?. RSN, RfC/U, ANI or WP:RFAR?. RSN deals with content and he has already refused the mediation. RfC/U needs 2 claimers and I am alone. ANI is not very different from a RfC: they try "to get fresh eyes on NPOV discussions". Is WP:RFAR really the only way?. --Keysanger (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Remember that RfC/U, ANI, and WP:RFAR are only for conduct disputes; they will not decide what is or what is not the proper content for an article, only whether or not someone is misbehaving. RFC/U is to get others to opine on that issue; the other two are for seeking actual sanctions: blocking, topic bans, interaction bans, or site bans. RFAR is unlikely to help you unless you can show that you have gone to ANI or some other disciplinary forum first. RSN is an advice forum for sourcing issues, not either a conduct or content dispute resolution source. You've exhausted your dispute resolution options for content matters, so your only options here are to either address conduct with the understanding that your content concerns will not be addressed, go back to the talk page, or just drop the stick. I express no opinion here, neither express nor implied, about the merits of your content or conduct concerns; I'm only speaking to procedure. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and best regards --Keysanger (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Misleading Filename

Aren't Commons common? Is there at least another place (maybe in the commons) where this request could be moved to or recreated at? --Aiwok (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid that while Wikipedia calls upon the resources of Wikimedia Commons, it's a separate entity with its own standards and procedures. You'll need to take up your dispute with whatever procedures that they may provide there, but I'm not familiar with what they have and don't have. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyways.. I'll try to find out if there are Commons counterparts of the entities you just mentioned in the topic below. (requst for comment etc.) --Aiwok (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Advice about Dispute

I see you closed the dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Person_of_Interest_.28TV_series.29. I am not sure why. I did not bring up the other discussions and editors since there was no "dispute" with them. There were discussions and not reverting being done. The lack of discussion on the primary topic is the issue: reverting with no discussion at repeated attempts. I am new to "dispute resolution": Where is the appropriate place for this type of dispute? I would appreciate any advice for handling this.AbramTerger (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The single biggest problem was that the other editor had not responded within a reasonable period of time. Participation in dispute resolution is always voluntary and without the participation of all significant parties there is nothing we at DRN can do, since the only thing DRN can do is to try to help the parties come to an agreed consensus. Moreover, on the primary dispute the other editor had only made one comment on the talk page; that does not constitute extensive discussion as required by all forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, including DRN, Third Opinion, and formal mediation. You might consider a Request for comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for rhe comments and the advice. I will try the Request for comments. Take care.AbramTerger (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

re: Christian terrorism

RfC is removed from list - but if Bryon Morrigan declines the mediation, then it will likely resume. I trust he will not refuse the mediation process though. Collect (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Russian Grand Prix dispute

Hi, I was wondering whether User:Jirka.h23 should be added to as a party in this discussion at Dispute Resolution. That user has participated in the Talk page discussion of the concerned article and has re-added the disputed content while the other are blocked. Tvx1 (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it wouldn't be a bad idea to do so. Just add him, create a summary section for him, and notify him on his user talk page. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Christian terrorism

Now the mediation has been accepted, do you know when it will begin? TFD (talk) 07:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

We're still waiting for a mediator to volunteer. I can't do it myself, unfortunately, because I have a conflict of interest and, also, have impending real world demands that may substantially limit my ability to be online for several days or more. I'm working on some behind-the-scenes things that may result in someone volunteering, but it's not impossible that we may have to withdraw the acceptance simply because no mediator will take the case. Let's see what happens. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your knowledge of formats

Hello TransporterMan; Your signing template looks much better than mine & I was wondering how to get around the imprint appearing twice in the signature? You appear to have figured it out. You can see the doubling up in my signature here which I need to post manually without the automated 4-tilde. Cheers. FelixRosch (talk) FelixRosch (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You have two different user accounts linked in your signature, one to User:Giano and one to User:FelixRosch, with the latter being the account that you are signed into. Is that intentional? Anyway, since I can't see the code on your Preferences page, I can't really figure out what's wrong for sure, but the following is my code:

[[User:TransporterMan|'''TransporterMan''']] ([[User talk:TransporterMan|TALK]])

If I were going to guess (and presuming the link to Giano is unintentional), I think the correct code for your sig would be:

[[User:FelixRosch|FelixRosch]] [[User talk:FelixRosch|'''(talk)''']]

Clear out everything in the signature block on your preferences page, insert what I have above, and make sure the checkbox under the signature box is checked. Save the page and try it on a sandbox page. Hope that works. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear! I have had some odd 'pings' in my time, but this has to be the strangest. Not many people have tried to imitate me here - you must now be in a unique category of your own Felix. Giano (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The two of you have such nice signatures that I decided to combine them into one new signature. I think it looks ok. FelixRosch TALK 21:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks very nice indeed Felix. You'll find it helps to get you noticed in long threads - not that that's always a good thing. Giano (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)