Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:11, 31 July 2013

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page - it will be on my watchlist for at least a few days, so I will see your response If you leave me a message: I will answer on this talk page - please watchlist it so you'll know that I've answered. This will ensure that conversations remain together! Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Thanks!

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

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

oldcsd

Template:Z1

Re: GoodSearch opinion

Thank you for the information. Understand the comments and agree with the suggestion. Uptodateinfo

{{Hangon}} for Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School

I have once again put the {{Hangon}} Template on the article, but I'm quite unsure why this article would be moved to deletion. It doesn't seem to have vandalized the copyrighted content, and also doesn't seem to have plagiarized someone's work. I can see what you are talking about, but I think that this article shouldn't be deleted. Otherwise, I will improve this article to Misplaced Pages's standard. But thanks for your notice.

Please contact me if you have any concerns.

Besides I'm only a Wikipedian for less than 6 months so I'm quite inexperienced. However the quality and standard of my articles will improve. Challisrussia (talk)

Village with offensive name

Just looked at your referral for Kotak, a village with an allegedly offensive name. The offensive word would be kotok (which is offensive slang for penis in at least Kyrgyz. However, Kotak should be ok -- it also appears on google maps for roughly the same location shown in the article -- Google Map of Kotak. Thanks for checking up on it, though! ~~

Wikiquette Alerts Notice Response

talkback

Re:

talkback

Mail

¡Thanks For The Heads-Up!

Binkernet would no doubt have been more than happy for me to have been unaware of the changes in that page; Thank you for the heads up. A REDDSON

Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Legal_threat_by_User:Uboater_at_Talk:U-8047_Replica_Submarine.23Connection_with_trust

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

following you around, opposing you at every turn

How receptive would you be of the views of someone who was obviously following you around, opposing you at every turn, TransporterMan? Please, if you must follow me around, try to constrain yourself to stay out of sight whenever possible. Having been stalked IRL, I find it very unpleasant when it apparently happens online. Thanks for your consideration. Since I have noticed several instances of poor reading comprehension, let me state explicitly: that's not an accusation of stalking or violating policy. --Elvey (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not following you around. I work regularly at, and always keep watchlisted, WP:3O, WP:DRN, WP:MEDCOM, and WP:EAR and have not been involved with you except when you've turned up in one of those venues. You did so at 3O, which resulted in the SPI report, and then at EAR which resulted in my comment there. If you edit in those places — or anywhere else where I regularly edit — whatever you say or do is fair game, but rest assured that I'm not going out of my way to look for you or your edits, either there or elsewhere. — TransporterMan (TALK) 05:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC) PS: I forgot about the Village Pump. That's not a place where I regularly edit, but I responded there not because I followed you there but instead because of this notice which was left on the 3O talk page, which I do watch. Again, I'm not following you around and I commented on your proposal there only because it was related to a subject and venue which I care very much about. It had nothing to do with you, but only the topic you were dealing with. — TM 05:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Ok. It sure felt creepy, as you opposed me in so many places that seemed unrelated. I retract. On the plus side, maybe now you'll finally understand that I really was just trying to ensure I received a neutral 3O, after reading this and you'll see that it wasn't to avoid scrutiny.

• • Here's a situation where the weak anonymity is a more serious problem: It's common for one person involved in a 2-person dispute to follow the edits of the other. If one of them thereby notices the other requested a 3O, that person could ask an ally or meatpuppet (or even use a sockpuppet) to respond to the 3O. Such a biased (but masquerading as neutral) 3O goes a long way to supporting a determined POV editor. --Elvey (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that someone has responded to a Misplaced Pages:Third opinion request, report it at WP:ANI. Don't just imply things on random talk pages. As for "following you around", Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding explains when it is and is not appropriate to track other users' edits. Again, WP:ANI is the correct place to report that, not here. You might want to consider doing better at following Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, thus giving other editors less reason to monitor your activity. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC) (Comment stricken because issue appears to have been resolved.) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

[LATER NOTE: I think the following 4 comments are easier to understand as they were originally posted in-line for context, as permitted by WP:TPOC rather than after converted to bottom-post format, which is also permitted by TPOC.

Oddly, you just told me to report every 3O response I see at ANI. By "someone", I guess you mean someone who might be a solicited ally or puppet of the provider of the first or second opinion. Your suggestion won't work. Inhibiting such persons' 3Os is feasible, while reporting remotely suspicious 3Os to ANI isn't and isn't even allowed, for good reason - admins and checkusers can do only so much, plus ANI says "To report suspected sockpuppetry, see sockpuppet investigations." The point of my VP proposal is inhibiting such 3Os. It should continue to be discussed at the pump, not here. --Elvey (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

To clarify: TransporterMan, I mentioned the proposal here, to you, because it's become clear to me from your recent comments on my VP proposal that, back in March, you didn't fully understand what the security problem that could only be addressed with the use of a secondary account was. It seems you thought I was concerned about the actions of regulars on the 3O team, such as yourself. Do you see now it's the impact of the irregular 3O suppliers that did and does concern me? Do you understand now, given that and the above? --Elvey (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I hear you saying I should have posted to ANI instead of here. Posting here and getting such a helpful response from TransporterMan resolved the problem quickly - far more quickly and easily, with far less admin time used up than posting to ANI would have! And yet you're telling me I did it wrong. I tried hard to explain the problem in a calm, collegial way, and the quick, successful resolution his helpful response helped produce suggests I didn't do such a bad job. --Elvey (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware of that page re. feeling followed around; what part of "that's not an accusation of stalking or violating policy" you don't understand, I don't know. Irony of ironies, that statement of mine is preceded by "Since I have noticed several instances of poor reading comprehension, let me state explicitly:". And still you manage to misinterpret me. Here you are, following me around and attacking me, again, for something you had to misinterpret in order to see as improper. Oh, and look - ANI even says, "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." And yet, for doing exactly that, you accuse me of "imply things on random talk pages". So perhaps you gave me bad information when you said WP:ANI was the correct place to report my problem, not here. It's academic at this point, but if you still think I should have posted to ANI re. feeling followed around, I wonder precisely what text you think I should have posted.--Elvey (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Ditto. I will do my best. I hope we can end the discussion here. You've provided input, criticism and instruction, and I've heard you. I'd like get back to building an encyclopedia; enough already. --Elvey (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is far better to get back to building an encyclopedia than to engage in conflict. If you wish and TransporterMan does not object, I will be happy to strike out or delete the my comments above, and of course as you know you are always free to delete (but not edit or move elsewhere) comments on your own talk page --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good. I'd be pleased if you strike your comments as you see appropriate. I won't argue over your last point here and have even pulled my replies elsewhere so you have the last word. Or strike or delete what you've said there as appropriate where you don't want to have the last word. :) --Elvey (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad y'all have worked everything out. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL. TM, I'd still like to hear from you re. "To clarify: TransporterMan...", above; perhaps you missed it because it was set apart http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TransporterMan&oldid=558718621#following_you_around.2C_opposing_you_at_every_turn only before it was reformatted. --Elvey (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

TM, I'd really like to hear from you re. "To clarify: TransporterMan...", above; perhaps you missed it because it was set apart http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:TransporterMan&oldid=558718621#following_you_around.2C_opposing_you_at_every_turn only before it was reformatted. --Elvey (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

TM, I'd really like to hear from you re the above.--Elvey (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, it's not that I don't understand, I do understand, but that I disagree. I really do appreciate you trying in good faith to improve the processes here, but I believe the status quo at 3O is just fine and the use of alternate accounts would merely cause greater problems than it would solve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cause your signature uses Trebuchet MS...I like Trebuchet MS. Howicus (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and cheers! Yeah, my secret sin (as if there's just one...) is that I'm a frustrated font geek. I'd love to use different, but high quality, fonts more, both here and in my everyday world, but technology make it really, really difficult to do automatically, consistently, and well. Treb is one that's relatively easy because it's on Every Windows Machine In The World and which actually works well online. If you like Treb, you ought to take a look at:

PS: If you like Gill Sans, but prefer "l's" with a curly-tailed bottom like Treb, its infant version has them (but trades a two-story "a" for a single-story, more's the pity). If you're good with a font editor, you can have both (and old style numerals as well, if you like them). — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I'll check those out. I'm not really that much of a font geek, I just know there's more to life than Times New Roman (or Calibri, since MS changed the default). Howicus (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to butt in here, but I think I may have found a fellow font geek. Interested in starting a WikiProject Fonts? theonesean 23:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Previous dispute resolution case.

Hi. I saw that you had marked this particular dispute resolution case as closed, and I was wondering how I might go about reopening it now, as the editor involved has started editing again. To be honest, I really don't want to open a new case myself, as I'm getting tired of typing the same argument over and over again. I was just wondering if you could help. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll look at this, but it probably wont be until at least tomorrow before I get a chance to do it justice. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at it and am reluctant to reopen it since it's already been archived and since it was initially filed by the other (IP) editor. That appears to be a dynamic IP who has been editing the article under various IP's for quite a while, but there are other editors who seem willing to plug in or add to the information in dispute once this IP gets the ball rolling. It appears to me that there is no solution clearly mandated by policy here, so this boils down to one of those things which must be decided by consensus. Let me suggest that you do one or the other of the following: (a) File an RFC on the issue to see how the community as a whole feels about the issue or (b) wait for the IP to edit again and then immediately ask if s/he is willing to do or participate in a DRN filing and ask them to refile. The RFC would be, I think, the preferable choice because it might be otherwise too difficult to gain and keep the IP editor's attention focused on the matter and it would also allow the other incidental editors a chance to express their opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for a second opinion on a dispute

The dispute "Tamilakam" has been referred to the DRN. A cursory glance at it makes me think that it is not suitable for DRN, since I can't see much evidence of a discussion of the alleged dispute on the talkpage. However, I'm not 100% sure, so could you please have a look and advise me on whether it fulfils the criteria for a "quick close".

--The Historian (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and closed it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sunifiram article again

"PS: At the DRN listing IO Device said, "As with any drug, readers are very interested in knowing any possible safety concerns. The removal of these concerns by 2.30.51.94 potentially places the readers in jeopardy if they, in their ignorance, choose to use the drug." It is a well-established principle that Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and does not raise or imply safety issues which have not specifically been first raised in reliable sources. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)"

Despite this, it seems someone is still continuing to add information that suggests Sunifiram is dangerous to the article:

Safety

As of 2013, no formal human studies with sunifiram have been conducted.

Sunifiram, like galantamine, activates PKC-α.

Specifically the last sentence. Simply stating that it does this seems to again go against what you say about not coming to your own conclusions based on peicing together information, and so on

""Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.""

I browse a forum dedicated to discussing nootropic substances and such like sunifiram, and I believe it is a single person who has had a bad experience after taking it, and believes it was due to this chemical, and now he seems to be on his own little crusade to make out like the chemical is Literally Hitler or something. this kind of shit isn't what wikipedia is for - not speculation or personal feelings towards something. I think the article should be partially protected or something at the very least to stop things like this, so people with actual medical knowledge on the subject or with legitimate sources of information can change it, and not a 'random'. GSVCulture (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would note that you are incorrect that someone is "still continuing to add" since that text was there before I made those comments. At the time I made those remarks I saw, and wondered about, that sentence, but it was not part of the text which was in dispute and which had been taken to DRN so I did not comment upon it. I would further note that the sentence first read "Sunifiram activates PKC-α." and the "like galantamine" was added later. I do not know, nor do I have access to, the sources which are cited, so I cannot evaluate whether or not it is appropriate. Since I am not editing that article (I do not, ordinarily, edit articles in which I become involved through my dispute resolution work) I'm not going to look at it further, but if you care to do so then certainly go ahead. The sentence could — I'm not saying or implying that it does, but only that it could conceivably — run afoul of Misplaced Pages policy in any of these ways:

• The base sentence may not be supported by the quoted source, either at all or specifically as to Sunifiram.
• The galantamine addition may not be supported by the quoted source, either at all or specifically as to Sunifiram. (That is, the galantamine source may say that galantamine activates PKC-α, but may not say anything about Sunifiram. If that's the case, then the reference to galantamine is either irrelevant to this article or is improper synthesis as to Sunifiram.)
• If that is not the case, and the sources do support the sentence and do specifically mention Sunifiram, they may not expressly say that the fact that Sunifiram and/or galantamine activates PKC-α has anything to do with safety, which makes the sentence inappropriate for inclusion in a safety section.

I could go on, but those would be my basic concerns in light of what happened previously. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I will note here just for the record that GSVCulture lied about there being only a single person noting adverse effects from sunifiram. There have been at least three people who noted serious long term side effects, and others who've noted at least short term side effects. --IO Device (talk) 23:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Intervening in DRN disputes

Hi;

I've noticed on two of the DRN disputes I'm working on, you have directly intervened by posting comments. Please don't. It annoys me when I'm trying to resolve a dispute to have another editor who - in assuming good faith - intervenes, tries to help, but confuses things by providing a completely different opinion. Whilst I don't mind discussing the dispute and receiving your advice (such as advice on points of "wikiLaw" - my term for Misplaced Pages's rules)on our talkpages, I don't want direct intervention in the dispute by posting of comments or advice unless specifically asked.

Also, a question for you,

1) Where an editor makes an assertion such as "Azerbaijani people are Turkic peoples", how many sources is he expected to use to support his assertion in order to comply with WP:CITE? Are three sources enough?

2) Where the same editor, as part of the sources he uses, cites books, how specific should the citations be? Is he required to provide specific page numbers as part of the citation?

--The Historian (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but any Misplaced Pages editor can take part in mediating any dispute listed at DRN. While there is often a "lead" volunteer, no one volunteer has the right to demand that other volunteers refrain from assisting. I have a lot of experience in DR at Misplaced Pages (I'm the most frequent contributor to DRN and the third most frequent at 3O, and I'm a member of the Mediation Committee) and all I've been doing so far is to try to help you keep from shooting yourself in the foot and to insure that disputes are handled in a proper manner, so please do not take offense. As for your questions, there is no number of required cites; one is enough if it is reliable. But you also need to remember that providing a reliable source is a threshold requirement for inclusion, not a guarantee of inclusion. As for the page number question, a full, proper citation for a work with fixed page numbers includes the page number, as stated in Misplaced Pages:CITE#Types of citation, but whether or not it is "required" is a tricky subject and largely dependent upon the context in which that question comes up. An editor is not likely committing an offense which will get him blocked or banned by merely failing to include page numbers, but if a citation is challenged (e.g. for not saying that for which it has been cited) an editor who contentiously refuses to provide the page number might have the citation deleted and might in extreme cases even be blocked or banned for disputatious editing if he or she persists in that refusal without offering a good reason for the refusal. The answer might vary in other contexts. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not saying that I "owned" the dispute, but I would like the opportunity to learn the mechanics of DRN for myself. Again, I don't object to your watching disputes I mediate, and advising me through our talkpages, but please, unless asked, DON'T write comments, especially if they give opinions contrary to those I have already given, since these would just confuse parties.

By the way, if I believed that a Misplaced Pages:3O dispute is going nowhere, even after my 3rd Opinion, am I allowed to refer that dispute to the DRN, or does referral have to come from either of the original parties involved in the dispute? --The Historian (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am truly glad that you're trying to help the encyclopedia in general and DR in specific and I understand both your eagerness and your frustration with my interventions and I would not have given you the award and advice that I've given to you up until now if I did not believe that you show a great deal of promise. (There have been other inexperienced editors who have tried to do what you are trying to do who experienced editors at DRN have simply asked to stop working there until they became more experienced in Misplaced Pages in general, say 2,500 edits or so, before they tried again.) I'm sorry, but in light of your lack of experience at Misplaced Pages — not in DR, but at Misplaced Pages as a whole, as you only have 355 edits altogether — I will not commit to not intervene if I believe that your actions are not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If I were to be entirely frank, I would strongly recommend that you limit your DR work to 3O until you have a good deal more experience. 3O is far less demanding of expertise than DRN — after all, all you're offering is your opinion — and for that reason also far more tolerant of mistakes. (As for your 3O question, yes you can certainly make that recommendation.) Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

A dispute that I gave a 3rd Opinion on has degenerated down to the point where I don't think it will be resolved by the Misplaced Pages:3O mechanism. Therefore, am I allowed to actively file a dispute at the DRN, and if so, would you keep an eye on it please?

--The Historian (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to say that you can't do that, but I think that it is usually inadvisable. Just give the recommendation to the parties and let them do it if they care to do so. Making them do it themselves gives them some incentive to go through with the process and gives them a chance to restate the dispute in their own words, which helps them clarify the issues rather than put the volunteer's slant on it. Moreover, if you're talking about Talk:Istrian_exodus, it looks like DIREKTOR isn't going to be around to pursue the DRN case, so it probably ought to wait for his return to editing. If it is filed, I'm pretty sure I can't handle it due to prior dealings with DIREKTOR under DRN's neutrality policy, but I'd have to check that to be sure. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

PS re Azerbaijani people: Just a couple of general observations which may be worth little or nothing. First, this is a dispute over "Turkish" vs "Turkish speaking". The Turkish advocate is whacking on Encyclopedia Britannica as a source and you've linked it to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/46833/Azerbaijani. But if you go to that page and click on the linked term "Turkish people" that the editor relies so much upon, what does it take you to? The "Turkic peoples" article at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/609972/Turkic-peoples, which begins, "Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages." Or, in other words, "Turkic peoples" is defined as people who are Turkish-speaking. I haven't read through the pages of discussion at the article to see if anyone has cottoned onto that fact, but it is interesting at the very least and leads me to my second point. Reading though some of those talk pages makes it clear that some people want the Azerbaijani people to be either a people of mixed ethnic origin or a people who are an ethnic group unto itself who, in either case, just happen to speak a Turkic-related language while others want them to be ethnic Turks. "Turkic-speaking" or "ethnic group" (as previously used in the article) thus supports the not-Turks side and "Turkic" supports the other. I'm not familiar with the nationalist or political or religious issues which may be involved, but there's pretty clearly something like that involved. The problem for us encyclopedists is that there's no one, single definitive way to describe an ethnic group. (The ethnic group article covers the problem pretty well.) While I'm not familiar with the Turkish issues, I'm very, very familiar with the issues surrounding the Polish Lemkos, a people who live (actually, lived, but that's a long and horrible story) in Poland in the Tatra mountains adjacent to Ukraine, and the question of whether they are Ukrainians or an ethnic group unto themselves who just happen to have a lot of Ukrainian customs, practice the same religion as the Ukrainians, and speak a language which can be fought over as either a language unto itself or a dialect of Ukrainian. The answer turns on what the person you're talking to wants. That person could, depending on the point in history, be:

• A Ukrainian nationalist who wants to take their land away from Poland and make it part of Ukraine. For him, they're ethnic Ukrainians, nothing more and nothing less.
• A Polish government official who wants to keep the Lemko's territory in Poland. For him, they're Polish citizens and Lemkos, an ethnic group entirely different from Ukrainians. Oh, they may be an ethnic group different from ethnic Poles, but they're sure as heck not Ukrainians.
• A Lemko sheepherder who recognizes the similarity between themselves and Ukrainians, but is just fine living in Poland, and just wants to be left alone. He's fine being a Lemko.
• A Lemko who sees Lemkos and some closely-related ethnic groups, the Slovak Lemkos, the Boykos, the Hutsuls, and the Subcarpathian Rus as a distinct ethnic group, the modern Rusyns and wants part or all of their land to become an independent country. He'll see the Lemkos as the Lemko subtype of Rusyns.
• A Russian official who sees Russians, White Russians, Ukrainians, and Lemkos as all being ethnic Russians.
• The ethnographer who will say that all of them have a point (except maybe the Russian).

In short, whether the Lemkos are "Ukrainianic" or "Ukrainiaic-speaking" is far more of a political, nationalist, and religious (a Roman Catholic priest or a Eastern Catholic priest would probably say they're Lemkos or Rusyns; a Ukrainian Orthodox or Russian Orthodox priest would probably say they're Ukrainian or Russian) issue than one of blood and language. I strongly suspect that's what you're facing in this dispute: two editors who have far more at stake somehow than just objective naming rights. If that's right, the only right answer here is one which best suits the mission of the encyclopedia and there's a pretty good chance that neither of these editors may give a hoot about that. Longwindedly, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A little help

The reason why i listed it on the dispute resolution noticeboard was because the two of us have been having some serious disputes resulting in unpleasant experiences. Needed an independent admin or volunteer to sort out the mess once & for all. There has been plenty of screaming on our respective talk pages.

If dispute resolution is not the way forward what do you suggest? Superfast1111 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's what you've been doing alright: screaming at one another, but not discussing. Discussing is not screaming. I see you've tried to extend an olive branch, but when that comes after a long period of screaming then it can sometimes take awhile before the other editor is willing to do that. Give it some time, perhaps a couple of months, then come back, apologize again, and ask to discuss it before doing any editing in the article. Give plenty of time for a response. There is no hurry here at Misplaced Pages, and that's particularly true with images (other than copyright issues, of course, which aren't involved here so far as I can tell). But dispute resolution will not be available without recent substantial discussion about the content. Discussion about conduct will not be considered in deciding whether or not there's been enough discussion. Oh, and have that discussion at the article talk page, not on your user pages. While most DR volunteers will look to see if the discussion has happened on user talk pages, they're not required to do so and can close down DR requests if the discussion isn't on the article talk pages (and since many users blank parts or all of their user talk pages, volunteers sure aren't required to go digging through page histories to find it there). Misplaced Pages is built around collaborative discussion and there must at least be a recent and substantial attempt at it before DR will help. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that 3rd Opinion is available as a short term solution till we get around our various disputes? Superfast1111 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it has the same discussion requirement, and for the same reasons, as does DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 06:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Any other suggestions? Its not the first time an olive branch has been extended. This dispute extends back a while. For example on the Secunderabad Railway station page,i added some images on 22 October 2012 & since then except for Abhishek no one else has removed them for substantial periods of time so the only thing i can conclude is that that person has a personal problem otherwise why except for him is no one removing my uploaded images. Was looking for a permanent solution. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

No, that's all I have. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The DRN case

Hello. What is the next order of business for this case Talk:Battle of Kursk#Use of term Blitzkrieg. I'm down for a compromise, if the other editors are willing: The blitzkrieg stays together with the supporting 4-plus citations. Then the succeeding sentence can point out that it is still disputed. The only problem with that is that it may one day get tagged with {{citation needed}} if they don't provide one. They could also put an inline endnote to point out that the term was never used in any orders issued for Citadel; and sources to support this should be easy to find. Although technically, if we follow that logic for the rest of the content in the article, we will have a sea of such endnotes. But I have no objections to its use in this instance if it will resolve the dispute. I wanted to post this suggestion in the noticeboard but I'm not sure if we are still waiting for something or if there is a unique protocol to the resolution of disputes. Especially since my previous replies turned out to be outside the proper protocol. EyeTruth (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I really only intended to drop a comment there, not take on the case. I'll drop a note at the other volunteers' talk pages. They may decide to close the case since one editor has not chosen to participate. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I just took a second look and realized you weren't the main volunteer. For some reason I assumed you were, maybe because you had the largest comment on there. :p. I will buzz the other volunteer, then. Also, I doubt the other editor will be participating since he already declared his loss of interest in continuing the dispute even before I brought it to DRN. EyeTruth (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so what happens now? Can't you take over the dispute resolution or is there a protocol to it? I really don't know the protocols behind all these. At this stage, do I have to take this elsewhere, like formal mediation. Don't know how all this works man. This dispute has slowed the progress of the article for a while now. It will be great to have it cleared up. EyeTruth (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I ordinarily could take the case over, but can't in this particular case due to DRN's neutrality requirements. (I've had past experience with one or more of the editors which could bias my work either positively or negatively.) I've extended its expiration date by a week and I'll post a note on the DRN noticeboard to see if I can get someone to take it. If that doesn't happen, then I'd suggest trying a Request for Comments, since WP:MEDCOM might refuse the case for lack of any real prior dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons

In regards to the DRN on the Morgellons:Talk page. Yes, I would like to participate. I am a new user and I am a unfamiliar with how to proceed. Is the correct procedure to make a statement on the Morgellons talk page that I will be participating, ot the DRN notice board. I appreciate your help.Erythema (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Erythema

Douglas Karpen

You have nominated for deletion an article that is on the dispute resolution board. I assume you were not aware that the article was awaiting arbitration regarding edits that were highly questionable by another editor. Several sources have been removed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#douglas_karpen

Lordvolton (talk) 08:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

AldezD (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Istrian exodus

Hi;

I recently filed a dispute called "Istrian Exodus", and it's been without a mediator for a while now. Could you kindly take on the role of mediator? Whilst I provided a 3O in it, I think it would be a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages:COI were I then to mediate the same dispute on DRN.

Kindly;

--The Historian (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I was giving serious consideration to closing that listing because DIREKTOR has not given an opening statement, but I now see that he's been off-wiki for a couple of days, but is now back. I'm still not sure that I don't have a COI with him, as well. Finally, I'm pretty wrapped up with the Morgellons dispute right now. Let's wait to see if he joins in. If he does then perhaps one of the other regulars at DRN will take it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

theonesean 21:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your use of secondary accounts concerns.

TransporterMan, I mentioned the proposal here, to you, because it became clear to me from your comments on my VP proposal that, back in March, you didn't fully understand what the security problem that could only be addressed with the use of a secondary account was. It seems you thought I was concerned about the actions of regulars on the 3O team, such as yourself. Is that right? Do you see now it's the impact of the irregular 3O suppliers that did and does concern me? Do you understand now, given that and the above? --Elvey (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably didn't see the response I posted a few minutes ago, above, but I'll repeat it here: Elvey, it's not that I don't understand, I do understand, but that I disagree. I really do appreciate you trying in good faith to improve the processes here, but I believe the status quo at 3O is just fine and the use of alternate accounts would merely cause greater problems than it would solve. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly there are upsides and downsides to my proposal, and I accept that resonable people can disagree on it. I was keen to get that answer from you for a different reason, namely your interpretation of this edit. --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit stalking, when it is impermissible (in many cases here at WP stalking is permitted, see WP:HOUNDING for the distinction), is best handled directly by a complaint to WP:ANI. If it is, in fact, inappropriate, a sysop will take action to discourage or prevent it; if it is not, or if there is a question about whether or not it is appropriate, then the stalkee needs to just live with it. That's much preferable to the problems which would be caused by allowing sockpuppets or anonymous edits, in my opinion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, a form of hounding is permissible, I know. But do you dispute that edit stalking someone's 3O requests is inappropriate behavior, or at least very likely to be inappropriate, if acted on? Surely you would concede that it perverts the purpose of 3O to provide a 3O that isn't really one? You say WP:ANI is the way to go, and it would be if it could be used for this, but it's useless: How does one detect the sort of edit stalking that I was trying to avoid in order to complain at WP:ANI? In other words, how does a user differentiate 'I disagree with you (too)' from 'I disagree with you (and I'm a puppet)'? I've given some explanation for why it does not appear to be possible, and there was no rebuttal. I'll spell it out in email if you'd like as I'd rather not facilitate sockpuppetry. Or do you actually dispute that I should be able to request a 3O and not get an answer from a puppet? --Elvey (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way

Also - apropos http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Morgellons - You used the cart/horse analogy incorrectly. You wrote "to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all is putting the horse before the cart". It's clear you think that "to try to decide how much space and/or weight to give the real-disease theory before deciding whether or not it can be included at all" is a bad idea. But putting the horse before the cart is a good idea. It's putting the cart before the horse that's a bad idea. The horse pulls the cart; a cart can't pull a horse, and a horse can't push a cart. Am I right? --Elvey (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right, sir, as Ed McMahon would have said. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Heh. It's ironic that a user named TransporterMan would make this (transport-themed) mistake!  :) --Elvey (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for closing the waste-of-time request at DRN earlier. I love helping newbies, will bend over backwards to do so, but he never contacted me, never responded to my comments, never made any effort to improve his article. So thanks. theonesean 20:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I have replied to your question about eyewitness news reports on my talk page. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Falstaff

Thanks. It was a tough choice – either The Church Lady or the Landover Baptist Church! – S. Rich (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Adminship?

Heya TransporterMan. Just been noticing your great work at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It's been a while since your last RfA. What do you think about giving it another try? Feel up to it? -- œ 03:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

YSupport Go Phightins! 03:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I truly appreciate the confidence, but I fear that I don't have the content editing experience needed to pass (and my evaluator agrees). I've written another article since that evaluation, Charlene Richard, which is awaiting GA evaluation, but still isn't the kind of heavy-duty editing which the evaluator recommended and I've yet not done much else he's suggested. To tell you the absolute truth, I went into the last nom with the understanding that I was still pretty green and that it had a high likelihood of failure and that if it did indeed fail that it would be no big deal. You may think that I am a wuss by saying this, but I was wrong and it put me into a wiki-depression that took a couple of months to break out of and I don't relish going through it again. I'd just as soon wait until I've done the things necessary to be sure that I can pass before trying it again, as I'm not at all sure that my asbestos britches are up to taking another scorching. If y'all think that I'm being too reserved, I'll be happy to listen to your advice, however. What do you think? Many thanks, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should go with your gut. I can tell you one thing though, I and a number of other admins I've talked to have high confidence in you, and would support. -- œ 14:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Team_Kaobon

I am unsure if I would be overstepping my bounds, but if the user does not do so on their own volition, would you consider (as a so far uninvolved editor), removing the (what appears to be) advertising from the filing editor's user page? Thanks -- Nbound (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I probably was going to speedy nom it, but someone got there before I did. Though a lot more latitude is allowed for that kind of thing on user pages than elsewhere, that one goes too far an is probably a good nom. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

How to file DRN request?

Hello, I don't see instructions on WP:DRN and I see this page blank and protected. I want to file request regarding this dispute on 2002 Gujarat violence. Thanks. neo (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Do it through http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request. I don't know that you'll be able to do it through the mobile (en.m.wikipedia.org) site. In light of the fact that there's already a dispute pending at DRN about that article which isn't attracting a volunteer to respond, I rather doubt that another listing on a different aspect of the problems there will attract any help, either, but you're free to give it a try. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

PS: If the filing has something to do with the matter pending at Misplaced Pages:RSN#Are UN.2C EU.2C US etc websites reliable sources.3F, the DRN filing will probably be immediately closed due to it pending there. DRN doesn't accept filings on matters pending in other forums. — TransporterMan (TALK) 18:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

No, my mobile shows blank page. I will try to place request through other method. But that prev listing is no more valid. After that listing, that user has replaced whole article. So it is start from zero. I request User:Darkness Shines to confirm this so that you can close his request. neo (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your second reply. That RSN thread is only about sources. That user Darkness Shines is indirectly saying that even if my sources are usable, he won't allow to include content. 2 volunteers in RSN have said that my sources are usable. How long I should I wait more? neo (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If the dispute you want to list at DRN is unrelated to the matters brought up at RSN, then there's no need to wait at all. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I have filed request. But technical requirement is missing. I request you to please fix it. Sorry about it. Thanks. neo (talk) 20:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN

Hey mate, DRN looks a bit backlogged. Can you give me a hand clearing out some of the old requests?

DRN needs your help!

Hi there. I've noticed it's been a while since you've been active at DRN, and we could really use your help! DRN is going to undergo some changes soon, so it'd really be great if our backlog is cleared before the start of August and we have as many people on board to help with the changes (they include a move to subpages and the creation of a rotating "co-ordinator" role to help manage things day-to-day. Hope to see you soon! Steven Zhang 11:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

disput resolution Morgellons

Hiya, any chance you could put a warning shot across Drgao's bow about honoring the mediation controls? He's responding to other peoples' replies in the mediation thread itself and continuing to bring up sources (diff) in the main talk page that you've already decided were insufficient for WP:MEDRS (and WP:SOURCES) standards. Thanks. 198.199.134.100 (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

These sources are credible?

-Regarding the Kashi Vishwanath Temple, that a mosque by Ruler, Aurangzeb was made, after destructing some part of the temple-

"80 Questions to Understand India", By Murad Ali Baig. , "Ayodhya: the case against the temple", by Koenraad Elst, P. 77 - 80.. "Frommer's India" By Pippa de Bruyn, Keith Bain, David Allardice, Shonar Joshi, P. 472 - 473, And this news source. Let me know if they are reliable enough, so we can add the information back to article.Capitals00 (talk) 16:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

When I do dispute resolution I do not become an ongoing monitor for the article or articles in question, but only address the particular dispute which was brought to the DR venue. I'd suggest that you propose those sources at the article talk page and see what the other editor thinks of them. If that discussion stalls or proves fruitless after having been extensively discussed, you can then bring the issue to DRN or another DR forum. Let me note in passing that the issue raised by the other editor re conversion vs. same ground in this edit will probably also need to be worked out through discussion. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I opened a DRN, but it does not show at the DRN page

I opened a Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/1947–48 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine , but it does not show at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I might have done a mistake somewhere, but I would like to move it to the proper DRN page. I will appreciate it if you help me please. Ykantor (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. — TransporterMan (TALK) 01:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It is not mentioned yet in the top table, like other DRN's. Ykantor (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

No, but the regular volunteers at the noticeboard know that the table is not working at the moment. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Brit Morin page

Just wanted to say thanks for stepping in and helping out on Brit Morin #Plagiarism section earlier today. It is much appreciated. JNorman704 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 01:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Lyoness

Dear TransporterMan,

I sincerely apologise for the trouble we made you go through and I respect your decision to deem the referenced blog as an 'unreliable source' according to the Misplaced Pages guidelines. However, I can somehow not wrap my head around the fact that you consider the usage of this blog, in the way it was done in my edit, as a 'reference'. Rather, it was clearly stated that Mr Brear is of this opinion - and this is the blog where he expresses this opinion (to prove that it is in fact his opinion). So, the blog was not used to prove a fact about Lyoness, but rather that a certain opinion exists. I think that simple, but essential distinction should cause it to be exempted from the guidelines you reference.

Thanks again and have a nice day,

Lyoness expert (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll respond at DRN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Decision

Dear TransporterMan,

Thanks again. I disagree with your decision at DRN, because of what I mentioned above. However, that is not your fault as you did not write these guidelines and therefore I will accept and respect the decision and no longer put this particular passage back in. I do hope this does not set a precedent for LyoNewMedia to start remove anything he/she pleases, so please, if you can, keep an eye on the developments in the article.

Thanks and have a nice day!

Lyoness expert (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, while I do appreciate your effort to do so, don't be too quick to hold me blameless. While I wasn't around when those guidelines were written, I do fully support them and would be vociferously opposed to any effort to change them in any significant way. I certainly understand the changing way in which information is being communicated and that many folks are now resorting to various means of self-publishing rather than going through traditional forms of publishing. That's great and good, and much of that information is both valuable and true, but folks who do that need to understand that by doing that they are giving up the endorsement that traditional forms of publishing can give. The legal and commercial constraints on traditional publishing require traditional publishers to set high standards to, first, make sure that they don't get sued and, second, to establish a reputation for accuracy and reliability which encourages consumers to buy their stuff. As WP:SPS says, everyone who engages in self-publishing becomes their own expert and it is then up to the reader to determine the reliability and accuracy of what's there. For every blog which publishes Vital Information Which Is God's Own Truth there is another which claims that the Earth Is Flat or that Justin Bieber is the Greatest Human Being Who Ever Lived. All of those claims, when self-published, are opinions: if we let those kinds of opinions into Misplaced Pages, even if clearly identified as opinions, it would soon devolve into a source of information no better than a supermarket tabloid. We get criticized enough, already, as being a poor-quality, unreliable source. While those claims have been demonstrated to be false, we don't need to make them true. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC) PS: As an example of the problems being caused by open-access publishing, check out this article about the problems being caused by some open-access "scholarly" publications. — TM

Please don't get me wrong, I fully support Misplaced Pages's guidelines on not publishing material based on unreliable material and I do agree that most personal blogs cannot count as a reliable source. The distinction I have been continuously hinting at is that much like in writing a scientific publication, claims should be at all points validated and preferably qualified as an opinion. Even articles published in major traditional media, such as newspapers, while being check by editors, can contain traces of opinions of the journalists responsible for these articles. Therefore, most of my contributions to the Lyoness article are shaped like: 'Lyoness claims to have 3,000,000 members (ref)' and 'Austrian newspaper reports that expert A considers Lyoness a pyramid scheme (ref)', rather than to say 'Lyoness has 3 million members and is a pyramid scheme - because that could be factually incorrect. In that format, which I think is essential to the objectivity of Misplaced Pages on persisting phenomena (such as companies) - as contemporary knowledge/facts may be untrue tomorrow, much like in science - I think a reference to the opinion of an influential personal blogger cannot possibly be harmful to the state of the article and the understanding of its readers. Then again, you have decided, and as I said, I will respect and accept your decision.

Lyoness expert (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DRN on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

First, before closing, I would ask that you give it another 24 hours. The two major editors I have a dispute with are Arzel and Anonymous209.6. If you asked them, it might be effective. The dispute has become heated and they might not respond to the message that I left. My only interest is resolving the content dispute and this does need some outside help to do that. That said, what would you suggest as the next step, if they do not respond?Casprings (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not at all sure what you should do next. If they choose not to participate at DRN (and participation in content dispute resolution is always voluntary), then they're not likely to choose to participate at mediation and mediation will be refused by the Mediation Committee unless everyone agrees to participate. (Just for the sake of full disclosure, let me note in passing that I'm a member of the Mediation Committee in addition to working at DRN.) I've not read through the full dispute, but you say you've tried RFC's, which would be my next ordinary suggestion. The best that I can suggest is the technique that some editors use to bring an existing article from rough condition to a GA: Just take one tiny point at a time and work on it. Propose the change on the talk page first, then make the change if no one objects. If they object, work it out through discussion. If you can't, either give up and move on to a different point or try to bring just that tiny point to dispute resolution. (Frankly, even if the other editors had joined in at DRN this time I wouldn't have given your dispute much of a chance in attracting a volunteer to work on it because DR tends to work much better on specific points rather than on complaints that a whole article is in bad shape.) Once that one point is resolved, move on to another. That's the best I've got. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. RFCs were working. I was just using them a lot, which got noticed. Casprings (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

DR meta issues

Saw your transclusion and title edits to my DR. Did I do something incorrectly in the creation? I just used the DR form. Were there additional steps I should have done? (Relying on earwig for the notifications) . If there are additional steps, perhaps some request needs to be made to the form maintainers? Gaijin42 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

No, nothing more to do and you did nothing incorrectly. DRN is going through a transition in how it works and we are having to do some things manually. EarwigBot isn't running yet. Sorry for the uncertainty. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You have been mentioned concerning the outcome of the Morgellons DRN

Hi TM, as a courtesy notice, you have been mentioned here at WP:RSN. Zad68 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The user does not respond to your DRN notice. What can be done?

1. The user Pluto2012 does not respond to your DRN notice of 4 days ago. What can be done further to resolve the issue? BTW I would not like to have someone punished. I just want to resolve the issue.
2. Will it be possible for you to suggest which DRN to choose for another problem with Pluto2012? In my opinion it could be the Npov noticeboard since Pluto selected few incidents that suits him, rather than use an interpretation of a secondary source. Is this Npov DRN the suitable one for this case? Ykantor (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

snd amendment DR

Damn you are fast. I believe everyone involved will prefer the DR to RFC. Certainly the 2 commenters so far, and I believe even the creator of the RFC will as well. Can you reopen pending his reponse of what he thinks about speedy close of the RFC in deference to the DR? Gaijin42 (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

With the new way DRN works, it will be easy enough to simply reopen the case if that happens. Just let me know if it does and if I'm slow to respond then drop a note at the DRN talkpage pointing to this discussion. If some time passes between now and then, however, I may ask that it be refiled instead due to the possibility that the dramatis personae may have changed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have speedily closed the RFC. All commenters on the RFC so far have indicated that the RFC had issues (including TFD who I think will argue to the opposite argument as myself within the DR), and that DR was more appropriate, and since the opener of the RFC also created the DR, it seems clear that he finds DR an acceptable solution as well. Unless you find fault with my speedy close, I request that you reopen the DR per our earlier discussion. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reopened the listing at DRN, but I'm going to ask you to go to each editor's talk page and leave a note saying something like "Just in case you noticed that the DRN listing of Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Second Amendment to the United States Constitution was closed, please note that it has been reopened and your participation there would be very much appreciated. — ~~~~" or something to that effect, then in your opening statement section at DRN add a note that all editors have been notified of the reopening. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Turko-Persian War

I am sorry for violating the instructions, can you give one chance more? this is the only way to get this fixed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, good to see some nice people in Misplaced Pages. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. you already know the issue. -perso-Turkic war- but he don't stop and keep posting on my page. could you tell him to stop please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BöriShad (talk • contribs) 13:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, we both have agreed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed my mind. I'll not argue this WITH you. if there anybody else want to discuss about perso-Turkic war, I'll be here for discussion. but I'm tired your lies, defamations, nationalistic -so-called- sources etc. TransporterMan, please check sources which I shared and check his sources too. and you decide which of us has the point. and HistoryofIran do not bother me again, do not post on my page, ok? I doubt if you understand me but I'm just saying, do not bother me again. BöriShad (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, so have no right to control any discussion other than those which take place at one of the dispute resolution forums where I volunteer. I'm afraid y'all are on your own until you can work things out. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion regarding Drgao (from the Morgellons DRN discussion)

Hi TM, predictably, there's now an ANI discussion that you might be interested in regarding Drgao, and you have been mentioned in it. Although notification was posted to Talk:Morgellons I'm notifying you here because you probably don't have that article Talk page watchlisted. ANI discussion is here, appreciate your participation if you would. Thanks... Zad68 19:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Skyfall

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi TM, Is there any chance that this could be speeded up somehow? The other party in the matter is becoming increasingly uncivil and personal in his comments towards me on Talk:Skyfall‎#Moneypenny's name - revisited the talk page thread. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, just noticed this. If I could point out that on the same talk page, SchroCat has described me as "too stupid" to agree with his arguments, and one of his supporters has visited my own talk page to describe my edits as "poxy". Now I'm quite thick skinned so being called names doesn't bother me and nor would I go running to complain about it to anyone - I don't need mollycoddling from Wiki editors that disagree with me. But I won't be accused of being "uncivil" by editors who use such language, and thus cannot take the moral high ground. Nsign (talk) 07:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah - stalking. Nice. Could you provide a diff which points out where I call you stupid please? When you can't find it, I'd be obliged if you remove the accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for that, entirely my error - looking back it was in fact not you but user Cassianto who said I was "too stupid", as well as "malevolent", in addition to calling my edits "poxy". You have merely described me as "snide", "childish", asked me to "grow up" and now accused me of "stalking". Which is, of course, all very civil. Nsign (talk) 09:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I called your accusations (and not you) snide (which they were); I called you childish for this, which I had asked you not to call me: you were being childish, which is also why I told you to grow up: you were (and still are) approaching this in a very uncollegiate way, trying to force your POV onto the issue and not listening to the many and varied voices on the thread trying to explain the situation to you. And that is all before you drop further down the scale of personal abuse with like this. And yes: I will call you following me to this page "stalking": it's exactly what it is.

@TM, sorry your talk page now appears to be a spill over for the more excessive elements of the Skyfall talk. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The accusation of trying to "force my POV" is completely without foundation. This is a debate. A debate that was previously resolved by consensus and RFC, an RFC since violated and now, on my request, taken to dispute resolution for further discussion. That is demonstrably not trying to "force my POV". I'll accept any decision that admin makes, even if I don't agree with it. We have now both used language that can be regarded as "uncivil" - it happens. In the heat of debate, low blows are often exchanged. I don't really mind this as long as the essential points of argument are not obscured by it. By coming here and urging this editor to "hurry things" along by accusing someone of being unpleasant could be seen as a pretty blatant attempt to influence the outcome. Now I'm going to depart this talk page - I recommend you do too, rather than wasting space apologizing for wasting space when you started it in the first place. Nsign (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"blatant attempt to influence the outcome" Another baseless lie: again, provide evidence that is the case or withdraw the accusation. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

my last comment was never responded to

no decision was actually made. The discussion was simply closed arbitrarily by you, with my last comment never responded to you by either you or the other editor. Just because you and that other editor (not many people if you notice) want to dogmatically say "French pronunciation should not be mentioned", and just because you want to water down the French involvement in DR's formation, etc, does not mean the discussion was completely over.

This was my last comment that was never answered:

^^^^^^Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article?^^^^^

You or the other editor never answered that. So I'll ask it again.... French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was irrelevant under Misplaced Pages rules for the reasons I explained at DRN so requires no response. I said that I would close the listing if you did not provide a reliable source which shows that the French name was used as a significant name for the nation. You did not, so I did. — TransporterMan (TALK) 02:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment may have not been totally relevant to your request or the rules (or the interpretations thereof) but it was relevant to the other editor's comment, that was simply wrong. He was contending that French rule and involvement came so much later (etc)...and that is simply not all that true. Otherwise why would the article itself have the French involvement and rule matter so early in the article?

Regardless at this point...

it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As your big issue was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and it seems that the discussion was closed prematurely... Also, it wasn't like 10 or 15 people participated. It was really just you, me, and the other user. It's whatever though.

I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Misplaced Pages should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Help Please

Dear Mr. TransporterMan, I noticed you pasted my note to BullRangifer about the Pseudoscience stub on his User Talk page and he responded that he was trying to get a hold of me, but that I was not responding. I tried to edit the page to add my response, but there is no edit option. I was wondering if you could help me? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.130.119 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaving a note on his talk page for you, but if you will click here it will open up the edit screen for his talk page. Scroll down to the bottom of the edit field to find the proper section. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)