Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Greetings TransporterMan, Sorry for having missed the dispute regarding the 'Greater Middle East' article, of which I was not aware as I had not logged in for some time given my research commitments. Would request you to kindly re-open the dispute so that I can justify the improvements to the article and counter the IP who insists on removing 80% of its contents. Thanks, and sorry for missing this - I am still new to Wikipedia. WashingtonPrime (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

With no recent discussion at the article talk page, I'm afraid that any reopening or relisting would be futile since it would be immediately closed by another volunteer as either being stale or for insufficient recent talk page discussion. Try reopening the discussion at the article talk page. If the other editor does not respond, try making the changes you believe to be proper to the article and see if they revert. The IP editor has not edited in a couple of weeks and your edits may no longer be opposed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. I noticed a few procedural DRN closes that were done pretty much after the cases were filed. I wondered if you would think it a good idea if instead of closing cases straight away we try and direct them to the right place first, or if we think there's been no discussion we make a comment about us not seeing previous discussion and asking if it exists? All about us being welcoming and such :-) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I wholly disagree with that idea. Doing anything other than closing right away allows them to start the discussion at DRN rather than at the article talk page where it belongs, which then interrupts the flow of discussion when the case is closed and makes the matter less likely to settle. I don't know what other volunteers do, but when I close a case for lack of discussion I don't need to ask whether there has been any because I've looked for it, both at the article talk page and on their user talk pages and have checked their contribution lists to make sure nothing is going on anywhere else. Moreover, and perhaps this is me being curmudgeonly again, but I also resent the fact that they have lied when they say on the listing form that they have discussed the case. I also resent the fact that much of the time that they're lazy and/or not committed to the Wikipedia process by not putting out any effort to work together collaboratively to solve any disagreements over editing. No, I can't support this one, Steve. When there's a place for them go go other than back to the talk page or they appear to need some hand-holding, I suggest it in my closing remarks and sometimes even go on to say something on their user talk page, but leaving the listing open longer is a very bad idea. Indeed, I would be somewhat more likely to support the idea of eliminating the no–discussion rule altogether than to support the leaving the case open. I think, on the whole, that I'd oppose that, too, but it would be a weaker oppose than leaving the case open. There are pros and cons for that idea, but I can only see cons for keeping the rule but not closing immediately. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem mate, it'd be my pleasure. I can see why it'd be a headache! I'll give it a look in. :) BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Further to this 3O request, I spent 48 hours writing and re-writing my findings in a manner which wouldn't cause a flare up of paranoia and drama only to find other editors have thrown down and stepped in to provide other opinions. I have thus excused myself (and my almost published findings on the matter) so that should (more like WHEN) it drops in our lap at DRN I can simply address it then provided no major elements have changed.

The issue does not lie with any contention within the article, but with an editor of the article, and whilst the editors involved are doing their best to improve the quality every step of the way they are encountering dramatic reactions from said editor. John Carter has even spoken to them in the past, and they have been involved in several instances of such dramatic antics. It is a situation where a sane non-involved person would excuse themselves for obviously becoming too heated and too eager to have their point of view put forth as The Official POV (TM).

So don't hesitate to grab me if you see this pop up anywhere else, I freely admit I am woefully poor at staying on top of watched pages and the like, mostly because my contributions to wiki stem from my IRL skill set, whilst my wiki skill set is admittedly weak in some respects, namely these. :P BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a brief addendum, prior to my excusing myself I had hit save and aborted when I noticed the other comments so said findings / opinion will still be in the edit history; feel free to grab and build upon, change, alter, mutilate, or otherwise castigate any element of that finding for your own use should you wish to handle it yourself when it boomerangs back to us at DRN! <3 BaSH PR0MPT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BaSH, I'm glad you could puzzle out whether it was conduct or content. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I appreciate it, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Third Opinion Award
		Many thanks for your very speedy and wise council. Hope it works!. — Manxwoman (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 00:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poulton Abbey, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Roman and Grange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. It was actually a response to this posting which accused me of being someone else. Any advice would be welcome, if possible. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Try discussing things with the editor one topic at a time, rather than in generalities. Don't do anything just by edit summary. Try to always point to policy or guidelines. For example, start with the removal of "Senator" before each mention of the guy's name, and use "per Wikipedia rules, see talk page" and then explain and point to WP:SURNAME on the talk page. Scrupulously avoid saying anything about the other editor: only address his/her edits. (And have a thick skin about anything s/he says about you. If they attack, just ignore it, as tough as that may be.) If slogging through each edit is more than you want to do, just let the note that you dropped at the Politics project attract someone who wants to do so and walk away. We don't have to do everything ourselves and there is no hurry. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I will wait to see if someone else picks it up, although I can sort the Senator stuff out now. Ideally it needs someone more knowledgeable in the topics covered. If no-one does get to it though I'll perhaps read up on the subject and come back later. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt I couldn't be objective on the matter or I would have debated it. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

		The Third Opinion Award
		Even though it was a hard to solve dispute (especially because one of the sides didn't turn up), and it was obvious that a volunteer editor can't solve the case, you still took it upon yourself to try and help and gave good advice about what should be done in the future about the problem! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:47, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you and could you add user, ‎Legacypac , to the list of opposing editors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigiheri (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I missed a dispute resolution discussion due to being busy and having limits to my time for this kind of thing. A request for comment would have been appropriate for covering this. The user has been pushing to swap two photos for another two in a photobox with a long-standing consensus from years ago (in which our main consensus was to represent a range of different professions). One of the choices they want to insert has a lot of support, but the other one does not. And the two that they are choosing to remove (arbitrarily) don't have any support for removing them. There's no edit-war involved in keeping the old version until there is consensus for who we will remove (that is, for the one of his two choices that does have support). Avaya1 (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement that one must participate in dispute resolution, so no harm done if that is your concern. If the dispute continues, an RFC can still be filed. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this edit. I'm curious why you thought 708 was wrong. This was the bot's original edit adding the case ID. I'm sure it's not important - the next case was given 710 so there's no duplicates - so I won't bother changing it back even if I am right. Just wondering. CarrieVS (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Carrie, your guess is as good as mine. If you think 708 is right, change it back, that was just a guess. It was listed as 709 when I arrived this morning, then I changed it to 708, which I, too, thought was the original assignment, as you say, then I changed it again because I thought — for reasons that escape me now — someone had puzzled it out to be be right at 709. I'm clueless and befuddled. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got it. Nbound, who's new to volunteering and hadn't done this before, deleted the case ID when closing the case. Then Earwigbot added a brand new ID. I'll drop Nbound a line about not removing the ID, but I shan't bother changing it (if you'd rather have the original one, by all means do it). We'll have a gap in the numbers either way. CarrieVS (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is to request you to direct your attention to Narendra Modi. The edit i gave has been removed from the main article. I have given the entire edit as well as some other material in the talk page of the article and seek your advice. Soham321 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see that Drmies has edited the article since the DRN listing was closed (and has only edited the article talk page once, and that in a different context), so I'm afraid that I can't be of much help. However, I do note that you have commented at the article talk page, "It is for the WP admins to decide now whether they wish to include the edit in the main article." as well as another statement of similar effect. I'm afraid that will never happen, since admins have absolutely no authority to decide content matters at Wikipedia (except in the case of content which specifically violates policy, such as unsourced negative material about a living person and copyright violations). Indeed, there is no authority who does. All content decisions are made by the community. And also understand that anything done at DRN was no more than an attempt to facilitate those discussions; if you believe that filing your case at DRN was "taking it to administrators" I'm afraid that you are mistaken in that as well. DRN is not an administrator's noticeboard and, indeed, most of the folks who work there as volunteers — including me — are not administrators. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if the system is being gamed i.e. if inaccurate or incomplete information is being forcefully put into the WP:BLP because a large number of people with vested interests and possibly poor knowledge are not allowing a balanced WP article to emerge then the WP admins can step in and then the consensus will not be of the users/posters, but will be of the WP admins. This is in accordance with what Wikipedia had done to Church of S. Soham321 (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not what happened at Scientology. Any Wikipedia editor was, and is still, free to edit that article. There was a time that there was a limitation on editing it by editors who did not edit Wikipedia except to edit Scientology-related articles (either pro- or con-), but even that limitation has now passed. Editors who exhibit an ongoing POV or edit in a disruptive manner can be blocked or banned, but that's a matter of conduct, not content, to be taken up by administrators and generally requires extensive proof and discussion; the Scientology case took months to resolve. You're trying to ask administrators to jump past all of that and get directly involved in content and that's not going to happen. I see from the talk page that you're working with regentspark, an old Wiki-friend of mine. Let me strongly recommend that you listen to him and trust him. He came up through the dispute resolution ranks and really knows what's best on Wikipedia. You'll get a fair shake from him. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Many thanks for your advice which i will follow. Incidentally, i have apologized to both Drmies and Nick on their talk pages for being over passionate about this. Soham321 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There's a RfC at Talk:Islamism#Unexplained_deletions you may be interested in --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

smileguy91^talk 23:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for my award. I look forward to working more on Wikipedia for years to come. Thanks again, TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 18:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan, I live in the DFW area and would be interested in attending the Wicnic! —Prhartcom (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll let you know, but unless several other folks jump in today then I'm going to bail on the picnic idea. Perhaps we could get a meetup together then or at some other time, however. (Without the participation I'm just not up for going to the trouble to arrange a picnic spot, but meeting up entirely informally at a restaurant or bar is a different issue, and one other editor also expressed interest at the meetup talk page.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely practical and democratic, just the way we always do things around Wikipedia. It's all good. Meetup sounds great if we get 3. Thanks TransporterMan. —Prhartcom (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've pulled the plug on the Wicnic idea. Let me see how things are going next month and perhaps I'll propose just a walk-in meetup for the three of us and perhaps a couple of other folks I know who are from the Metroplex. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the other editor who expressed interest was GreenReaper. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys should join the AFM furmeets! Fun, sun, and ~100 furries every second Sunday of the month from 11AM in S. J. Stovall park in Arlington. GreenReaper (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Add 1 for the DFW idea. I do a meetup in the area for a special interest that I'm big into, so I know a wide variety of options. Obviously weekends are better than weekdays. Hasteur (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I just told another person that we may be doing this, so perhaps the meetup idea will pick up some steam. By the way, just in case anyone worries about this like I do, if we do this no one will be pressured to reveal their real world identity. If you just want to use your username or a nickname to identify yourself, you'll be free to do so. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it really makes a lot more sense to activate the Texas Wiknic for June 22 or so. There is a big raft of publicity that we have yet to unleash, that will be released nationally for the Wiknic, but not for later meetups.--Pharos (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You came to provide a third opinion on the ECCO page and did so with helpful, thorough clarity. This is thank you for taking the time, from a young editor to a veteran. Chrisg77 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

--Pharos (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I asked a question of you over there. It may just be me being incredibly stupid, but I'd be grateful for a reply. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks! & Cheers, Keep up the good work ! ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear TransporterMan. You briefly tried to arbitrate a dispute resolution (more specifically, an "edit war") for the article "Greater Middle East" a couple of months back (March). The individual who was trying to de-contextualize this article disappeared when the Dispute Resolution process began. He has now returned with a new alias and is attempting to once again vandalize the article. Can you please advise what measures can be taken for this? I have left a note for him on the "Talk" page of the "Greater Middle East" article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.180.29 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please see (here) my closing comments at the time the prior DRN listing was closed. By the way, I am not a administrator, but merely a dispute resolution volunteer. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Transporter. Just noted your comments. In fact I have RETAINED the integrity of the article. This can be seen if one looks at the evolution through the "View History" section. Best! I.P. 99.235.180.29 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I had tried finding a souce for Nocturne in the moonlight manga but in vain. Another User TransVannian had found this link. From my experience it probably would have been menacingly hard for the user to find MangaUpdates. This shows how difficult it is to find a source for a little known work. Now that MU is not reliable how is another source going to be found? Multiple users have worked very hard to preserve the featured status of the list. KahnJohn27 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean to be abrupt or mean about this, but sometimes information — even information which is Absolutely True and Vitally Important — simply cannot be in Wikipedia because there is no reliable source for it. However, remember that artistic works can be primary sources for basic information about themselves (e.g. copyright date, if shown in the magazine), so long as absolutely no interpretation or synthesis is used. For example, calling the story in a magazine "gothic" would be inappropriate unless the magazine actually says that. — TransporterMan (TALK) 13:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I've addded a new source for Dracula X Nocturne in the Moonlight. The source ia Push Square. It is a reliable source and does not violate any copyrights. It mentions that the manga was only available through pre-ordering Symphony of the Night and the game was released in 1997 and so was the manga along with game. You can check the source yourself if you want to. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll let you and the other editors at List of Castlevania media work that out. I generally do not become involved in the editing of an article on which I've given a Third Opinion beyond the specific issues involved in the 3O request. Thank you for working hard to improve Wikipedia and good editing, TransporterMan (TALK) 12:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I was only asking for your opinion. I don't think by giving an opinion you are interfering in anything or siding with anyone. I'm just asking you for your opinion about whether the source is completely reliable. I already know the source is reliable since it is a reputed website and of course does not violate copyrights. Still I would like to know your opinion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Dusti^*poke* 01:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the two of us over at MPAA have expressed our opinions on the talk page now. Would it be appropriate for me to re-add the request for a third opinion? 63.153.230.166 (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello TransporterMan (awesome name btw). I saw your notice on Talk:Mandy Moore about how you removed my request for a third opinion and I must say I disagree with your assessment. The Third Opinion page states tha is is "for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute". There are only two editors involved, myself and Hullaballo Wolfowitz, and the disagreement Has come to a standstill since he disagrees with my edits, I made my case days ago and he hasn't replied. Isn't that exactly what a third or fourth or fifth opinion would be for? Happy Evil Dude (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The part that's a problem isn't so much the "standstill" part, as it is the lack of a thorough, collaborative discussion. The Third Opinion page actually states: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill. If no agreement can be reached on the talk page and only two editors are involved, follow the directions below to list the dispute." (Emphasis added.) Also see this part of the Dispute Resolution policy:

Talk page discussion as prerequisite: Third Opinion and Dispute Resolution Noticeboard require substantial talk page discussion as a prerequisite. Requests made at those forums without substantial talk page discussion will ordinarily be deleted or declined. Actual talk page discussion is needed, and discussion in edit summaries will not satisfy those requirements.

Wikipedia is based upon a model of collaboration: working in a cooperative manner towards a common goal. Conflicts are inevitable in such a situation, but Wikipedia's model expects editors to make a good faith effort to work together in a collegial, non-accusatory manner to work out those conflicts between them through reasoned discussion and mutual respect. The restriction on all forms of content dispute resolution that disputes be thoroughly or extensively discussed is to enforce that model. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC) PS: I also note that a third editor has joined that discussion since your comment here, so the "only two editors" requirement of Third Opinion can also no longer be satisfied. — TM

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)

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:

• Gill Sans
• Johnston (typeface)
• Interstate (typeface)
• And a bit different, but gorgeous: Goudy Sans, which arguably has the most beautiful set of sans-serif italics ever devised.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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 Wikipedia 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,[12] activates PKC-α.[8]

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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia (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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia in general, say 2,500 edits or so, before they tried again.) I'm sorry, but in light of your lack of experience at Wikipedia — not in DR, but at Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

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 Wikipedia, 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). Wikipedia 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)

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/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#douglas_karpen

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

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

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 Wikipedia:Third opinion request, report it at WP:ANI. Don't just imply things on random talk pages. As for "following you around", Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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[ing] 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)